Beyond the Black Box: - IA de Investigación especializada en el MIT

Más allá de la caja negra:
The Lettrist Cinema of Disjunction

ANDREW V. UROSKIE

I was not, in my youth, particularly affected by cine-
ma’s “Europeans” . . . perhaps because I, early on,
developed an aversion to Surrealism—finding it an
altogether inadequate (highly symbolic) envision-
ment of dreaming. What did rivet my attention
(and must be particularly distinguished) was Jean-
Isidore Isou’s Treatise: as a creative polemic it has
no peer in the history of cinema.

—Stan Brakhage1

As Caroline Jones has demonstrated, midcentury aesthetics was dominated by a
rhetoric of isolated and purified opticality.2 But another aesthetics, one dramatically
opposed to it, was in motion at the time. Operating at a subterranean level, it began,
as early as 1951, to articulate a vision of intermedia assemblage. Rather than cohering
into the synaesthetic unity of the Wagnerian Gesamtkunstwerk, works in this vein
sought to juxtapose multiple registers of sensory experience—the spatial and the
temporal, the textual and the imagistic—into pieces that were intentionally disjunc-
tive and lacking in unity. Within them, we can already observe questions that would
come to haunt the topos of avant-garde film and performance in the coming
décadas: questions regarding the nature and specificity of cinema, its place within
artistic modernism and mass culture, the institutions through which it is presented,
and the possible modes of its spectatorial engagement. Crucially associated with

1.
“Inspirations,” in The Essential Brakhage, ed. Bruce McPherson (Nueva York: McPherson &
Co., 2001), páginas. 208–9. Mentioned briefly across his various writings, Isou’s Treatise was the subject of
a 1993 letter from Brakhage to Frédérique Devaux on the occasion of her research for Traité de bave
et d’eternite de Isidore Isou (París: Editions Yellow Now, 1994). Brakhage describes his memory of the
original screening at Frank Stauffacher’s Art in Cinema series at San Francisco Museum of Modern
Art in the 1950s, undertakes a strange and spectacular reading of the work, and describes its mani-
fest importance for his work and his teaching. The letter is unpublished in English, but it is held at
the Brakhage archive at the University of Colorado, Roca.
2.
Senses (chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008).

Caroline Jones, Eyesight Alone: Clement Greenberg’s Modernism and the Bureaucratization of the

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

OCTUBRE

Jean-Isidore Isou. Treatise on
Slobber and Eternity. 1951.

histories of film, actuación, and the visual arts, these works were nevertheless
unjustifiably neglected because they could not readily be seen as fitting within the
province of any single medium or discipline. Yet both aesthetically and conceptually,
they established an early foundation for the whole postwar tradition of expanded
cinema and intermedia performance that would emerge and develop internationally
over the quarter century to come.3

As a group, the Parisian Lettrists had no prior experience in film, yet dur-
ing a brief, frenetic period around 1951, they suddenly, audaciously committed
themselves to the production and theorization of the medium. The films, por-
formances, and manifestos of Isidore Isou and Maurice Lemaître, and later Gil J.
Wolman, Marc’O, and Guy Debord, amounted to a postwar rehabilitation of the
Dada legacy, in opposition to the rather diluted Surrealism into which that
legacy had descended.4 Their works were not “films” so much as self-conscious
gropings toward some wholly new art they simply called un cinéma ailleurs. Su
privileging of text over image was not an indication of absolute value, merely a

3.
There is no mention of either Isou or Lemaître within any of the canonical histories of
experimental film: whether Sheldon Renan’s Introduction (1966), Parker Tyler’s Underground Film
(1967), Gene Youngblood’s Expanded Cinema (1970), David Curtis’s Experimental Cinema (1970), PAG.
Adams Sitney’s Visionary Film (1974), Amos Vogel’s Film as a Subversive Art, Stephen Dwoskin’s Film Is
(1975), or Malcolm LeGrice’s Abstract Film and Beyond (1977). One finally finds a passing reference
to both in A.L. rees, A History of Artists Film and Video (Londres: British Film Institute, 2000), dónde
Rees cites them as an indication of the postwar resurgence of the avant-garde in Europe and a
source for the American underground cinema. Stan Brakhage is the major exception to this rule—
he has repeatedly remarked upon the vitality and importance of Isou’s Treatise over the years. Para
rare American review of the film, see Guy Coté, “Cinema Sans Sense,” The Quarterly of Film Radio
and Television 7, No. 4 (Verano 1953), páginas. 335–7.
4.
See in particular Thomas Elsaesser’s famous interrogative essay “Dada/Cinema?” in Dada and
Surrealist Film, ed. Rudolf E. Kuenzli (Cambridge, Masa.: CON prensa, 1996), and George Baker’s recent work
on Claire and Picabia’s hybrid cinematic performance Relâche/Entr’acte (1926) in The Artwork Caught By the
Tail: Francis Picabia and Dada in Paris (Cambridge, Masa.: CON prensa, 2007), páginas. 289–338.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Más allá de la caja negra

recognition of the comparatively weak and haphazard development of what we
might call cinema’s “textuality.” Through the introduction of multiply disjunc-
tive textual dimensions, they intended to reverse both the privileging of the
image and the guise of narrative transparency within the integrated synthesis of
commercial cinema. It was an idea whose provocative initial elaboration took
place at the very site of art cinema’s postwar emergence: el 1951 Film Festival
in Cannes.

We should recall that the festival at Cannes, despite having been initiated
before World War II, had only taken place three times prior to 1951. And while
it was obviously a marker of prestige and renown for the directors in competi-
ción, it was just as much a place to debate and institutionalize the proper
aesthetic trajectory for cinema as a modern art. The two big films that year,
Vittorio De Sica’s Miracle in Milan and Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s All About Eve, eran
polar opposites in terms of form. All About Eve represented the height of the pol-
ished American studio picture, while Miracle in Milan deployed the gritty,
naturalistic aesthetic of Italian Neorealism. Presenting these two films, the jury
at Cannes likely thought itself quite catholic in its taste, not insisting on a partic-
ular formal program, able to celebrate heterogeneous forms and traditions
within its conception of film art.

It was into this atmosphere of cultured sophistication that a young Jewish
Romanian expatriate, Isou, brought a half-completed, rather incongruously
titled work, Treatise on Slobber and Eternity (Traité de bave et d’eternité—hereafter,
Treat ise), that ent irely confounded this emphasis on cinemat ic realism.5
Possessed of a boldness and egotism rare even for a twenty-five year old, este

5.
I will simply refer to the film as the Treatise—both in the interest in economy, and to
counter the unfortunate series of (mal)translations to which the film has been subjected. El
French word bave can signify the liquid dripping from the mouth of an infant or a dog, hence the

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

OCTUBRE

Isou. Treatise on Slobber
and Eternity. 1951.

self-proclaimed revolutionary went door to door, harassing the administrators
of the festival until they agreed to grant him a small, peripheral exhibition. Él
would be a considerable understatement to say that the jury did not like what
they saw. Almost immediately, the room was filled with boos and hisses, y
after the first section was completed and the screen went completely blank, el
audience became apoplectic; the screening was unable to continue.6 Isou took
their disdain as a badge of honor—and as copy fodder for his future posters.
He also took comfort in the fact that the one member of the jury aligned with
the avant-garde, the seminal Surrealist Jean Cocteau, bestowed upon him a
hastily concocted “Prix de spectateurs d’avant-garde” so that he would not go away
completely empty-handed.

Although young, Isou was not unknown to the Parisian artistic milieu.
Quitting Romania and traveling to post-Libération Paris at the age of twenty, Isou
had quickly built a reputation for himself as a language poet in the tradition of
Tristan Tzara, fellow countryman and co-founder of the Zurich Dada’s leg-
endary Cabaret Voltaire. Penning manifestos on everything from political
economy and history to aesthetics and erotics, he created a small circle of
devoted followers for himself and his self-proclaimed movement of Lettrisme.

frequent choice of “slobber.” Within the film, sin embargo, Isou uses the term only once, and he express-
ly draws upon its connection with the base, material body of human speech. Thus “drool” or “saliva”
might be more appropriate. Además, the term can carry the connotations of contamination, como
in the expression baver sur, roughly “soiled by scandalous speech.” When Raymond Rohauer import-
ed the film to America and it was screened at the San Francisco Film Society and at Cinema 16, el
crucial word “Treatise” was left out entirely, and the film was titled simply “Venom and Eternity.” In
Lipstick Traces, Greil Marcus uses “slime” for no discernible reason whatsoever.
6.
Isou’s supporters were shouted down in their attempts to explain the film, and Jean
Cocteau—whom Isou felt supported the film in secret—said nothing at the time, though he would
publicly defend the film later, as I recount below. The most complete account of the affair is in
Frédérique Devaux, Le Cinema Lettriste (París: Editions Paris Experimental, 1992), páginas. 55–61.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Más allá de la caja negra

Isou had come to Paris with impeccable revolutionary credentials, having been
the leader of a youth organization in Romania devoted to the Communist Party.
Yet his youthful dedication to the Party had soured, and upon arriving in Paris,
he distanced himself from the French Communists. Yet Isou was convinced of
the rising power and importance of youth culture for the future transformation
of society, and this idea would remain a defining feature of the Lettrist, y
más tarde, Situationist programs. The roots of the latter date from this first screening
at Cannes, where a young philosophy student by the name of Guy-Ernest Debord
had been impressed by Isou’s ideas on social and political transformation and
had taken up with the group upon their return to Paris.

Isou had laid out the basic tenets of his aesthetic in a 1947 volumen,
Introduction à une nouvelle poésie et à une nouvelle musique (Introduction to a new
poetry and a new music).7 Much of this early manifesto rests on a fundamental
distinction between two successive phases in the development of the artistic
medio. The phase amplique —the “amplifying” or “growth” phase—comes at a
medium’s beginning and is characterized by the elaboration of basic formal con-
ventions and vocabularies and the giving of expressive form to various thematic
concerns. The phase ciselante —“chiseling” or “deconstructive” phase—occurs
when exhaustion with the terms of this “expressivity” have set in and routine
and formal stagnation are judged to have taken over. En este punto, an advanced
art practice ceases to employ the medium as a means to represent external sub-
jects and themes, taking up instead the very conventions and vocabularies of the
medium itself as its subject.

In the abstract, Isou’s theory seemed little more than an idiosyncratic
articulation of some of the broader principles of aesthetic modernism. Yet it
provided a revolutionary spark to film and cinematic culture, establishing an
avant-garde cinema in Paris practically ex nihilo and intuiting a range of formal
and conceptual issues that would prove central to experimental film and media
artists for decades to come. Isou’s first contention was that cinema, precisamente
because it was already being considered, seen, and discussed in the ciné-clubs of
Paris as an art, had already reached its first death. A superficial level of quality
could be maintained simply through the mining of past innovations and the
reshuffling of various forms and themes, but it was precisely the ease of such for-
mulae that heralded the close of a certain era of wide-open possibility.

Describing Isou’s motivation in a rare American review, Guy Coté writes,
“the motion picture had, until this new movement appeared, been the only valid
art form on which a concentrated destructive attack had not been launched
within the last hundred years. . . . Pour un cinéma ailleurs! is today the message of St-
Germain-des-Prés.”8 Lettrist films were indeed an attack and a provocation, pero ellos
have too often been understood as purely anarchic negations without structure or

7.
8.

Isou, Introduction à une nouvelle poésie et à une nouvelle musique (París: Gallimard, 1947).
Coté, “Cinema Sans Sense," pag. 335–7.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

OCTUBRE

significado, deliberately enraging their audiences in a jejune allegory of political
revolution, as if saying, “As I rebel against cinematic decorum, so you should rebel
against the decorum of an unjust society!” Hence the countless, and mainly apoc-
ryphal, stories of rioting audiences and police arriving with fire hoses. Yet as Greil
Marcus and others have noted, these “events” were almost all exaggerated—if not
concocted—for the sake of publicity.9 Rather than empty provocations, Lettrist
cinema is better understood as a series of complex constructions: admixtures of
proposition and cancellation and recombinations of preexisting audiovisual mate-
rial into new assemblages for thought and experience.

Isou had quite a profound respect for the history and evolution of cinema.
Unlike many future practitioners of experimental film and video, he clearly saw
himself as the descendent of a half-century of aesthetic development within the
culture of the moving image. Yet for Isou, this development had become stalled by
the very success of the studio system. It had reached such a peak of technical com-
petence—it had so mastered the seamless conjunction of cinematography, acting,
dialogue, and sound—that the creation of perfectly autonomous cinematic worlds
took place automatically. While he did not put it in these terms, Isou seemed to
evoke the Wagnerian Gesamtkunstwerk in his condemnation, arguing that individ-
ual elements in the film, such as the soundtrack, were inevitably subordinated and
thus invisible in the course of their synthesis. For Isou, both studios and audiences
had become resigned to this model of immersivity, whether in the sophisticated
manner of Robert Bresson or William Wyler or in the tawdry antics of the
Cinerama or 3-D cinema. The art of film thus no longer questioned its basic struc-
tures of representation.

Against this synthetic vision, Isou argued for the independence of multiple
textual and discursive levels, moving in and out of synthesis and generating a mul-
tiplicity or disruption within the heart of the work itself. Rejecting the realist
aesthetics of André Bazin, then dominant within film criticism, Isou’s cinéma dis-
crepant hearkened back to the proposals of Dziga Vertov and films like his
Enthusiasm, or the Symphony of the Dombas (1930). Coming from the Latin verb discre-
pare (from crepare: “to make noise” and -dis: “to split off”), discrepant connoted not
only the idea of atonality but the purposeful disjunction of different modalities as
Bueno. Reversing the traditional privileging of images over words, this cinema would
incorporate long passages of spoken literary and philosophical text into the space of
the theatrical presentation, allowing cinematic spectators to become readers and lis-
teners in addition to viewers. By deliberately unlinking the sound from the picture,
Isou sought to create a textual level that could float free of narrative cinema’s
diegetic world. Autonomous, yet constantly creating new kinds of association
through its interaction with the image, this new textual level would transform the
synthetic coherence of the immersive narrative film into an audiovisual constellation
composed out of multiple and divergent modalities of experience.

9.
Prensa, 1989), pag. 335.

Greil Marcus, Lipstick Traces: A Secret History of the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, Masa.: CON

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Más allá de la caja negra

Isou. Treatise on Slobber
and Eternity. 1951.

While Isou’s principal written treatise would be articulated the next year in
his Aesthetics of Cinema, his first, and arguably most powerful, articulation of
these ideas was presented through the very medium he set out to critique.10
Audiences in 1951 were right to question whether what they were seeing was
even a film—it certainly bore no relation to any known work past or present.
En efecto, when Stan Brakhage came to describe it as “one of the most powerful
films I’ve ever seen,” he tellingly added, “I am not sure it is a work of art so much
as it is a powerful film essay.”11 Yet the Treatise begins neither with language nor
with image but with sound—an endlessly repeating, incomprehensible yet dis-
tinctly human chant. The darkness of the theater and the anticipation of the
opening image obliges us to attend to the specificities of these sounds even
more acutely than we might in a concert hall. Unable to translate it into lan-
guage and hence signification, we perceive the sound obdurately as sound,
human sound—curiously physical and substantial for all its immateriality. Para
almost four minutes, we are left in the dark with this looped, two-second repeti-
ción. Absent any other stimuli, the chant (which we can never be certain is not a
idioma) acquires a mesmerizing rhythm and sonority. Its hybrid human-
mechanical force propels the film, underlying the images as well as the other
soundtracks, for the first thirty-five minutes of the work.

The initial image is of text—a poster on the outside of a cinematheque
announcing Charlie Chaplin in “L’opinion Générale” (presumably a play on L’opinion
publique, originally, A Woman of Paris, 1923). As the protagonist Daniel—played by
Isou, but voiced by Albert LeGros—leaves the hall and his eyes strain against the mid-
day sun, a voiceover tells us that Daniel feels as if his head has been used as a

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Jean-Isidore Isou, “Esthétique du cinéma,” in Ion, ed. Marc-Gilbert Guillaumin (París:

10.
Centre de création, 1952), páginas. 7–154.
11.

Stan Brakhage, Film at Wit’s End (Nueva York: MacPherson & Co., 1989), pag. 115.

OCTUBRE

Isou. Treatise on Slobber
and Eternity. 1951.

drinking vessel by savages. We are told “the characters and setting of this story
are—of course—imaginary,” yet Daniel is clearly Isou, and the lecture on film aes-
thetics we hear is quite evidently a lecture from Isou, even though the lips of the
character onscreen never mouth a single word. This textual splitting and over-
lap—of actor and director, of fictional character and flesh-and-blood person, y
of non-diegetic and quasi-diegetic monologue—are all elements Godard would
employ throughout the next decade.

This complex narrator heralds the dawning for cinema of what had by then
become an axiom of modern art: the notion that a world already bloated with
images can suffer no more. Under this view, true aesthetic innovation can only
come from reworking and transforming preexisting imagery, ripping it from its
original context and feeding it into new circuits of analogy. “The creators of old
had an empty space in front of them in which they could move,” the narrator will
later state, “but we, the Epigones, the late-comers, all we have to work with for
material are historical memories.” Throughout the lecture, ostensibly given in a
film screening and repeatedly interrupted by boos, catcalls, and various other
forms of ridicule, we are given impossibly “blank” shots of Daniel wandering the
streets of Paris. In a technique evocative of the “stalled action” that Deleuze said
characterized the postwar “crisis of the movement-image,” Daniel is presented in
perpetual motion, seen from constantly changing perspectives. Yet all this move-
mento, of the character and of the camera, is emphatically superfluous, for neither
can be understand as purposeful or directive. Bastante, both are self-consciously
futile and incoherent—as disjunctive as the sounds we hear.12 Their movement is
not the movement of a diegetic narrative being developed so much as the barren,

12.
I describe Deleuze’s conception of the crisis of the action image and its importance for moving
image art of this period in “La Jetée en Spirale: Smithson’s Stratigraphic Cinema,” Grey Room 19 (Primavera
2005), páginas. 54–79.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Más allá de la caja negra

incidental movement of the film as it runs through the projector gate. Serving to
mark the mere passing of time, neither movement nor chant affords us informa-
tion through which we can “enter” the story. To the contrary, they are designed to
keep us, like Daniel, outside the space of the cinema.

In his public defense of Isou after the debacle at Cannes, Cocteau con-
tended that what the audience could not see was the very lack Isou had intended
to show. His own Orpheus (1949) had begun on a strikingly similar note, con un
image of the journal Nudism containing nothing but blank pages. “This is ridicu-
lous,” says Orpheus, to which the head of the Poets’ Café responds, “Less
ridiculous than if those pages were covered with ridiculous texts.” Forcing his
audience to attend to these prosaic images—not without beauty so much as with-
out coherence or purpose—Isou forces us to privilege the spoken text and the
sounds we hear. He allows the sound—the younger and less developed of the
sound/image pair—to become unchained from the image. For since the origin
of the sound film, sound has principally served narrative continuity by smooth-
ing over the juxtaposition of images. Yet it is the natural ease of this unification
that Isou contests.

Against this unity of sound and image, with the sound always in thrall to the
imagen, the narrator contends that “to conquer, one must divide,” and goes on to
offer a range of ways of conceptualizing this new endeavor. The text should not
simply remain “internal and necessary to the image” but occasionally “come from
completely outside, from beyond, a kind of prophecy.” This sound would function
as an extra dimension to the image, “as a surplus, unconnected with the organism.”
Finalmente, he contends that “words, through their shadings and definitions,” can be
strategically employed to “reveal the limitations of the image.”

The disjunction of word and image was actually an early feature of cinema,

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

OCTUBRE

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

Athanasius Kircher. Room for Simultaneous
Projection.“Ars Magna.” 1646.

but it was chiefly understood as a technological limitation. Because the earliest
cinematographs did not have the ability to record sound alongside their images,
the medium was felt to be at a competitive disadvantage to theater. Using title
cards to indicate those key moments of dialogue that could not be adequately
expressed through pantomime, the “silent” cinema unintentionally offered a
hybrid experience in which audiences were forced to shift from being viewers of
images to being readers of text and back again. One way around this dilemma
was to have a live announcer—such as the Japanese Benshi—describe the unfold-
ing of the narrative and the dialogue for the audience as the images flickered
on the screen.13 Together with the live music that was almost always a feature of
“silent” films, these announcers added an additional level of hybridity to what
was already more of a “mixed-media practice” than the singular technology the
industrial cinema would come to be.

Charles Musser has even shown that one of the earliest precursors to
industrial cinema contained just such a multiple conjunction of voice, texto, y

The Benshi history reveals an amazingly regionalized and performative practice whereby
13.
particular “voice actors” would become much more popular and celebrated than the movies for
which they performed. Some of these Benshi took great liberties with the film text, turning a drama
into comedy, por ejemplo, or even adding pornographic scenes to a classic romance. This compels us
to rethink the cultural inflections of a subgenre of deliberate mistranslation in films such as Woody
Allen’s What’s Up, Tiger Lily? (1966) or René Viénet’s Can Dialectics Break Bricks? (1973).

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Más allá de la caja negra

image.14 In his 1646 treatise “Ars Magna,” the Jesuit polymath Athanasius
Kircher described his Room for Simultaneous Projection, in which spectators
within a darkened room would be subjected to radically different orders of rep-
resentimiento. Multiple screens would simultaneously present iconic imagery,
diagrammatic representation, and written text, while a spoken commentary
would provide an additional textual level beyond the visible. Kircher’s mid-sev-
enteenth-century spectators were thus expected to contend not only with
multiple images, but with wholly distinct orders of perceptual information at the
mismo tiempo.

Musser does not ascribe the terms early- or proto-cinema to these practices, as we
might expect within a teleological model of development. Bastante, he usefully situ-
ates industrial cinema itself within a much larger and more diverse history of
“screen practices.” And once we begin to consider the diversity of early cinema on
la una mano, and the radical transformations of contemporary televisual practice,
on the other, the specific norms of Hollywood’s “classical cinema” appear less like
the natural endpoint in a teleological development of the medium, and more like a
single, somewhat idiosyncratic moment within a vast and constantly changing his-
tory of multimodal screen practices.

Within the Treatise, the narrator states,

if what I produce can be called “cinema,” then I deserve no merit, for it
already exists. We must find out how the cinema can go beyond itself.
It’s not only a matter of bringing something new into the cinema, pero
to open up a new road for the cinema as such.

Hasta ahora, I have discussed Isou’s subordination of the image to a complex and multi-
valent textuality, deliberately ignoring the vast range of visual innovations for
which the Treatise became known. For in the second section of the film, Isou
begins to incorporate a range of “found footage” that seems to diverge, quite inex-
plicably, from the love story he had begun to tell, even as the romantic narrative
seems increasingly to be diverging from itself. While framed by the encounter of a
man and a woman at a bar, and the complicated series of liaisons that transpire
between them, it branches off for long periods to discuss filmmaking, religión,
política, and the narrator’s childhood memories. The images often seem like they
might correspond to the text, but only as illustrations, never as the basis for an
immersive cinematic identification.15 More spectacularly, images soon begin to
appear upside down and backwards, creating a dizzying vertigo as the camera

Charles Musser, “Before Cinema: Toward a History of Screen Practice,” in The Emergence of

14.
Cinema: The American Screen to 1907 (berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).
It seems unnecessary to point out the obvious debt that Jean-Luc Godard’s films of the
15.
next decade—made in Paris with full consciousness of their Lettrist precedents—owe here to Isou’s
Treatise. Yet to my knowledge, Godard has never acknowledged the Lettrists’ influence upon his
work—perhaps because the later Situationists would repeatedly criticize Godard’s work in the most
scathing terms. See “Le rôle de Godard,” Internationale Situationniste 10 (París, Marzo 1966).

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

OCTUBRE

Isou. Treatise on Slobber
and Eternity. 1951.

moves up and down the mast of a fishing boat bobbing on the sea. But most signif-
icantly, the second part of the film reveals that Isou has drawn, painted, y
scratched into the very surface of the celluloid emulsion, creating a kind of cine-
matographic graffiti that feels quite unlike anything seen before in the history of
painting or cinema. These marks, which shudder and vibrate, instantly bring a
flatness to the three-dimensional depth of the cinematic image, seeming to take
place both in and on the image. They counteract the persistence of vision by
which cinematic technology operates, calling our attention to these moments as
constructions made from a series of individual, still images—bringing us back to the
photogrammatic basis of cinematographic movement.

And if Isou’s intervention is more like graffiti than drawing, it is because his
marks do not produce new and complete images so much as they deface and coun-
teract the work of preexisting imagery. In a brief but poignant scene clearly inflected
by Isou’s early commitment to, but subsequent disillusionment with, the Hungarian
Communist party, the narrator recounts an adolescent’s coming-of-age struggle with
religion and politics. We see an image of three men working at a tooling machine. Él
has the absolutely generic, prototypical visual construction that has come to signify
“worker” in all its class-based anonymity. We hear someone say, “politics, tal vez
because it lives upon a singular doctrine, always rehashes the same formulations as if
it took men for new-born babies.” As if to underline the violent reduction Isou finds
in the image, he has painted over the men’s faces individually and connected them
with a single flickering strand. “Do I become bored more quickly than others?,” we
hear, as we see a brief image of students walking to school. But the scene quickly
shifts to a Jewish temple, where we can make out ( just barely) an individual con-
cealed by a dark metal gate. “When I was a kid, each night I’d invent a new prayer. I
always wanted other prayers. Truths repeated too often cease to amuse me.” And over
the darkness of the gate, Isou has scrawled a brilliantly white Star of David. Todavía
because Isou drew each star differently while maintaining a certain uniformity of

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Más allá de la caja negra

placement, the effect is of a hauntingly transitory yet bright and powerful icon, shim-
mering with an adolescent energy born of anger, frustration, and longing. The star
frames the figure alternately like a halo and a prison cage.

The voice continues: “And a truth that has stopped amusing me is a lie,
because it has exhausted the warmth that made it new.” On the screen, we witness a
French political ceremony with the last emperor of Vietnam, Boi, likely just after his
abdication before Ho(cid:0)Chí Minh. With the country teetering between French control,
Japanese control, and independence, between Empire, Communist Republic, y
puppet regime, the superficial dignity of such a ceremony must have seemed the very
embodiment of political sophistry to Isou. Using black rather than white, Isou next
begins scrawling over the faces of the principal actors, leaving us to see only the uni-
versal form of pageantry involved. Now showing the faces of the young children being
made to stand at attention, Isou bookends his experience of religious intimacy and
exclusion with the kinds of rehashed political spectacles produced for men taken “as
new-born babies.” He does not film his own story; he uses images already in circula-
tion within the wider visual culture, surgically intervening in their operation at
specific moments, for specific purposes. His “writing” over the image serves to con-
ceal, distort, acento, and focus our attention. In so doing it provides a model for
artistic practices based on the intervention into preexisting image repertoires, utiliz-
ing the affective charge from recognizable imagery as the basis for a creative and
critical practice.16

The third section of the film is perhaps the most incongruous. It bequeaths an

16.
In a psychoanalytically sophisticated account of his interest in this manner of cinematic
intervención, Isou’s narrator claims to want to “make a film that hurts your eyes, like during the pro-
jection of those very old films in which you can see the numbers flashing by—1, 3, 5, 7—so quickly!
I’ve always loved these flashing numbers. Perhaps because I always connected them with the beauti-
ful classic films of old and my taste transposed itself from what I had loved to what went with that
love.” Here, as elsewhere, we see an obvious premonition of the issues that will be taken up in the
so-called structuralist filmmaking of the late 1960s and ’70s.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

OCTUBRE

Isou. Treatise on Slobber
and Eternity. 1951.

entirely different legacy to the art of the moving image then emerging in the 1960s
and ’70s: the documentation of performance. The Lettrists were then known, primero
and foremost, for a model of performance that reached back past the Surrealists
(still dominant in the Parisian aesthetic milieu) to the Dadaist poetics of Tristan
Tzara and Richard Huelsenbeck. Like the artists Susan Sontag describes in her
famous essay “Against Interpretation” a decade later, the Lettrist poets sought to
evacuate signification from their work in order to invent an aesthetics of pure sound.
Yet while individual works may have been devoid of meaning, Lettrist poetics was col-
lectively grounded on the idea that art had become too tame and civilized. Under
this view, what was needed was to fashion the brute cry of the animality underlying
man’s refined exterior. In practice, this meant that while Lettrist poems could be
given a kind of notation, they principally existed only for the duration of their per-
rendimiento. Rather than crafting his own vision, Isou effectively dedicated the final
section of his film to a collective documentation of these sound performances. Cada
individual is announced in turn, shown standing against a blank wall, while a scrawl
of paint crosses over them, symbolically cancelling their image while insisting on the
materiality of the celluloid medium. As each poem begins, the screen goes black
while this material trace remains—its brilliant, chaotic variations marking a pure
flow of time, coextensive yet distinct from the poetic noises we attend.

Near the conclusion, we are presented with a portrait of Daniel that effec-
tively summarizes multiple dimensions of the work. Rather than a properly
cinematic image, it is a repeated still frame: an unmoving moving image. Y
this very immobility is framed both inside and outside of the image. Outside, nosotros
hear the narrator’s voice, continuing to speak. This narrator—who is and is not
Daniel, just as Daniel is and is not Isou—highlights the lack of connection
between sound and image, subject and voice. And within the frame, a disjunc-
tion between the forward march of time and the paradoxical stillness of this
image is articulated by the continuous undulations of three thin lines. On either

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Más allá de la caja negra

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

side of Daniel’s face, a trail of paint rests above the photographic surface, mientras
in the center, a furrow trawled into the emulsion cuts directly across. Though
the images are formally similar, we innately grasp their distinct materiality.
Raising us simultaneously above and below the surface of the film, we are here
granted a dimensionality wholly at odds with the “realistic” depth of the photo-
graphic image. Seen both st ill and moving, as mater ial surface and with
photographic depth, Daniel is narratively presented in a moment of indecision
and radical questioning, just as the spectator is presented with a radically unre-
solved and irresolvable portrait of the artist.

When Raymond Roader screened Isou’s work at Frank Stauffacher’s Art in
Cinema series at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, a number of artists
were in attendance, including an aspiring filmmaker by the name of Stan
Brakhage. And while Isou’s Treatise was received in San Francisco as poorly as it
had been in Paris, Brakhage left the event profoundly affected. He would later
claim that seeing Isou’s work was a seminal event in the development of his aes-
thetic, and he has described how he regularly screened and analyzed the film
during his experimental film classes over the next four decades of his teach-
ing.17 In fact, the moving signature Brakhage would append to nearly every one
of his films—often taken as iconic of Brakhage’s cinematic ethos and even of
the artisanal film per se—clearly seems to have originated from his encounter
with Isou’s cinematic Treatise.

Treatise did not remain an isolated work. Maurice Lemaître, Isou’s disciple
and collaborator, had already begun the process of expanding upon the ideas in
Treatise before the final version of the work had even been exhibited. This second
Lettrist work, together with its accompanying theorization, would attempt to

17.
See Brakhage’s letter to Devaux in the Brakhage archives at University of Colorado,
Roca. At the San Francisco screening, a Roman Catholic priest was reportedly brought in to warn
the audience of French decadence.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

OCTUBRE

Stan Brakhage. Window
Water Baby Moving. 1959.

move beyond “film” entirely, and in so doing, would provide the aesthetic and
conceptual foundation for the heterogeneous practice of expanded cinema and
intermedia that would emerge over the next two decades.18

The Cinematic Situation: Has the Film Begun? (1951)

Lemaître’s work of 1951, Has the Film Begun? (Le film est déjà commencé?), estafa-
fronts its viewer with pyrotechnics of formalism. As within Treatise, Lemaître
paints, scratches, and draws over the surface of the film emulsion in ways that
seem sometimes connected with the underlying photographic images and some-
t imes completely independent of t hem. Addit ionally, abst ract and
representational imagery has been multiply superimposed on the images.
Splashes of color have been selectively added to the black and white footage.
Images are regularly under- or overexposed. They are wildly misregistered,
invertido, placed upside-down, and deliberately scarred by light leaks, dust, debris,
and holes punched through the surface of the celluloid. The film has been soaked
in soapy water so that the gelatin structure of its base runs and reticulates, disinte-
grating before our eyes. Old scraps of film taken from a processing laboratory
have been intercut into the work, as well as pieces of film leader, and negative film
in its unprocessed state. There are sections that produce a stroboscopic or
“flicker” effect through the alternation of pure black and white, with the occa-
sional pure color frame thrown in. Words, numbers, and other kinds of symbols
are presented in such short durations as to strain the viewer’s cognitive abilities.

18.
Lemaître had joined the Lettrist group in 1950 y era, like Isou, taken with the idea of
the youth as a revolutionary cultural and political force. Starting two journals at that time, Lemaître
used Youth Front as a vehicle for social and political thought, while developing Ur as a more literary,
visual, and philosophical vehicle for the movement.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Más allá de la caja negra

Finalmente, elements of text are split and recombined in such a way as to create
novel syntactic connections. During an audible discussion of D.W. Griffith’s
Intolerance, por ejemplo, “IN TO LER” appears on the screen as if to suggest the
emergence of a cinematic grammar on the model of a musical scale.19

The spectacular audacity of what Lemaître terms his “image-track” is worthy of
a much more detailed investigation than I can here provide. It prefigures much of
the formal development of the “materialist” film practices of the later 1960s and ’70s,
as well as the deliberate intertextuality and semantic deconstruction Jean-Luc
Godard would develop throughout his career. But it is important not to allow the for-
mal experimentation within the film itself to distract us from Lemaître’s more
encompassing investigation into the properly performative qualities inherent in the
event of cinematic exhibition.

Lemaître was adamant that his work not be described as a “film,” but rather as a
“séance du cinema”—roughly, a “film screening.” Rather than stress the complementar-
ity and interdependence of séance and cinéma, sin embargo, Lemaître insisted on stressing
their difference. In so doing, he highlighted some of the subterranean linguistic
properties concealed within the term séance. For if the English terms for the presenta-
tion of a film tend to suggest spectacles that are produced for, and directed toward, un
observing audience, the relevant term in French, séance, is generally used to denote
assemblies or meetings—activities in which a public is constituted and a variety of
interactions take place. It is a term that carries with it the strong, democratic conno-
tations of the French Revolution. One speaks of the right of séance, or assembly.
Bridging these different meanings, one might describe a séance as a period of time
consecrated to an activity during which the rules and conventions adopted by the
assembled group are dictated by that activity. It is a delimited and demarcated space
and time for a particular mode of being, a particular habitus, in Pierre Bourdieu’s
sense of the term. For Lemaître, thinking of his production in terms of a séance du
cinéma is meant to underline a radically new emphasis on the idea of film as event.
Rather than a material object, each film is a performance that occupies a particular
place over a particular period of time. Lemaître wants to focus our attention upon
this expanded cinematic situation, this performative, exhibitionary frame.20

The question of framing permeates every aspect of Lemaître’s creation, estafa-
fronting us even before we undertake to describe it. The work’s title is itself a
pregunta, almost as a kind of introjection, as one might say in shock or disbelief,
“the film has begun?!?” Yet the work further disperses as we attempt to fix it in time
and place. For Has the Film Begun? was not simply the name reserved for a reel of

This is another of the many Lettrist devices Godard would develop throughout his career.
19.
20.
Lemaître’s most self-conscious and consistent inquiry lies in an exploration of the delin-
eation and framing of cinematic representation itself. De este modo, a number of clips contain the brands of
various movie companies—Paramount, RKO, MGM—as well as the language of cinematic advertis-
En g, with its insistence on the “Coming Attraction.” These inquiries are at their most powerful when
they propel the fiction outside of its usual frame, not only disrupting the integrity of that frame, pero
revealing the complex ways in which experience might be multiply or even contradictorily framed.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

OCTUBRE

Maurice Lemaître.
Has the Film Begun? 1951.

celluloid film, but the name for a complete film performance for which the cellu-
loid reel was merely a single part. Además, the title was used for Lemaître’s
“score” for this film-performance, as well as a theoretical treatise intended to pro-
vide an aesthetic and historical context for the film-performance. Within this
written treatise, Lemaître describes his principal contribution to the field as the
delineation of four independent areas for experimental research in the domain of
film-performance: sound, imagen, pantalla, and the projection environment. Cada uno de
the four is to be considered both as an independent site for inquiry and in terms of
its necessary and ongoing relation to the other three. What Lemaître seems to have
understood from Isou is that the attack on the image—the act of chiseling inscrip-
tions by hand into the smooth surface of the photomechanical reproduction—was
not merely a transformation of film as a material surface. It was a transformation of
the spectator’s whole manner of relating to the film-event. If the film was to be
both physically and metaphorically “chiseled,” the audience was watching not a
transparent depiction, but the exhibition of an audiovisual combine. By scratching
the surface of cinema’s metaphorical window, Isou was activating the larger institu-
tional space of the cinematic encounter and the various spectatorial conventions
heretofore taken for granted. If the screen was now both a window and a canvas on
which to draw, it followed naturally for Lemaître that neither the physical surface
of the projection screen nor any of the accepted conventions of the cinematic envi-
ronment could be considered “transparent.” Instead, they could and must be
considered by the artist as active fundamental elements in the construction of the
total audiovisual environment. Within his score, we find not only the disjunctive
organization of sound and image familiar from Isou, but also a third column, uno
devoted to the environmental situation exterior to the filmic text. It makes clear
that the chamber within which the film was being screened was not a nullity or an

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Más allá de la caja negra

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

empty void (whether dark or lit), but rather an active component of the work’s dis-
junctive orchestration.

For Lemaître, the total environment designated by the term “SynCinéma” was
not a coherent synthesis of diverse media elements in the mode of the historical
Gesamtkunstwerk; it was entirely opposed to the audiovisual spectacle of seamless
coherencia. De hecho, Lemaître could be understood as reversing the convention of
the theatrical “black box” through which Wagner had integrated the spectacle
of the “total work of art.” While technologies of the projected image from
Kircher to Edison had necessitated a darkened space into which the faint light
of the projection could be screened, the traditional theater was obviously under
no such compulsion. Friedrich Kittler describes the 1876 opening of Wagner’s
theater in Bayreuth:

Wagner did what no dramaturg before him had dared to do (sim-
ply because certain spectators insisted on the feudal privilege of
being as visible as the actors themselves): during opening night,
he began The Ring of the Nibelung in total darkness, before gradually
turning on the (as yet novel) gaslights. Not even the presence of
an emperor, Wilhelm I, prevented Wagner from reducing his audi-
ence to an invisible mass sociology and the bodies of actors (semejante
as the Rhine maidens) to visual hallucinations or afterimages
against the background of darkness. The cut separating theater
arts from media technologies could not be delineated more pre-
cisely. Which is why all movie theaters, at the beginning of their
screenings, reproduce Wagner’s cosmic sunrise emerging from pri-
mordial darkness. A 1913 movie theater in Mannheim, as we know

21.

Kittler, Gramophone, Film, Typewriter (stanford: stanford, 1999), pag. 121.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

OCTUBRE

Lemaître. Has the
Film Begun? 1951.

from the first sociology of cinema, used the slogan, “Come in, nuestro
movie theater is the darkest in the whole city!”21

Lemaître’s conception of the film séance within the SynCinéma can be understood
as the first explicit attempt to theorize the nascent domain of expanded cinema in
which the traditional delineation of film and performance is consciously under-
mined for the sake of an aesthetic and conceptual interrogation of film-as-event.
According to Lemaître, the SynCinéma simultaneously undertakes two actions in
a kind of pincer movement: it drags us out from the putative transparency of the
screen-as-window metaphor toward the real social and material space of screening
while simultaneously theatricalizing this space as event. Not unlike the title cards
Bruce Conner would strategically deploy throughout A Movie (1958), Lemaître’s
work is constantly beginning, and beginning again, in medias res. Direct appropria-
tions of Hollywood advertising messages and industrial logos constantly seem to
be announcing coming attractions, suggesting the film has already concluded, o
alternatively, that it is only just about to begin.

Tom Gunning has famously described the earliest practices of film exhibition
as a “cinema of attractions” organized upon a fundamentally different model of spec-
tatorial engagement than the industrial narrative cinema that would come to replace
él. Wanda Strauven has recently remarked on how the very term “attraction” func-
tions to denaturalize our familiar idea of cinematic “monstration,” in which the
spectacle is shown to the spectator, in favor of a more bi-directional encounter that
acknowledges “the magnetism of the spectacle shown.”22 Thus, rather than immedi-
ately conceptualizing Lemaître’s work as a kind of theatrical spectacle, parece más

22.
Wanda Strauven, “Introduction to an Attractive Concept,” in The Cinema of Attractions
Reloaded, ed. Wanda Strauven (Ámsterdam: Ámsterdam, 2006), pag. 17. This volume contains the origi-
nal essays of Tom Gunning and André Gaudreault on the idea, as well as insightful new contribu-
tions by Charles Musser, Scott Bukatman, y otros.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Más allá de la caja negra

fitting to try to understand it as a mode of soliciting its spectatorial audience.
Lemaître’s title is quite obviously a question, and as an interrogative, rather than a
declarative, it queries its spectator rather than proffering a message.

If Isou’s interrogation confined itself principally to the way we understand
the sound-image relations within the film as constructed object, Lemaître’s “dis-
junctive cinema” expands out to incorporate the institutional framing of the
cinematic situation itself. Simultaneously highlighting and disrupting our expec-
tations of the ways in which the moving image is supposed to be encountered and
comprendido, Has the Film Begun? consistently works to juxtapose the inner and
outer space of the cinematic spectacle, ceaselessly modulating and confusing the
very boundaries of the cinematic text:

When the audience is let in, the screening room will be dark and there
will be no attendants to help people with seating. They will take their
seats in an indescribable confusion. The rectangular screen will be
deformed by the addition of a number of colored pieces of drapery
from which objects will be hung and placed in motion. While the spec-
tators are still being seated, the concluding scene of a Western will be
shown and the lights in the room will then be turned on. An announc-
er will tell the audience to leave the room. Maurice Lemaître will then
begin to read a lengthy defense of his film, which will be interrupted by
shouting. The projectionist, holding a bulk of celluloid film in his
manos, will appear beside the director and, accusing him of making a
film in contradiction to his own ideas, begin ripping the film stock
apart. The “producer” of the film will intervene, attempting to save as
much of the film as possible. He will chase the projectionist out of the
theater while shouting at him. A title card on the screen will indicate

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

OCTUBRE

Lemaître. Has the
Film Begun? 1951.

that the film is dedicated to Isidore Isou. The extras in the room will
shout to turn out the lights. This occurs to a loud “ah . . . ” of collective
satisfaction. Footage from several random films is then projected upon
the screen while the lights are again turned up. More collective shout-
En g. After a few moments, the lights are definitively put out.23

There is certainly here an effort to épater le bourgeois. But this shock or out-
rage has a precise purpose and directionality: it is intended both to make visible
and to denaturalize the conventionality of cinematic exhibition and spectator-
barco. Lemaître returns to this framing of the cinematic event again and again on
every level, traversing the “inner” and “outer” space of the spectacle, constantly
plying the boundaries of the aesthetic experience itself. This is not a simple disso-
lution of “art” into “life” but a highly organized and scripted series of experiential
encounters wherein the boundary or barrier between the aesthetic and the every-
day can be seen to have been situated. Seeing these boundaries, the audience
begins to experience them as such.

The point is not that anything can be art, that there are no boundaries or
rules—precisely the opposite. Lemaître’s Has the Film Begun? makes clear that,
over and above any formal grammar of the image, cinema has developed as a par-
ticular kind of art through the establishment and perpetuation of certain
concrete parameters of exhibition and spectatorship. For Lemaître, une cinéma
ailleurs, an “other” cinema that breaks radically with the nature and purpose of
industrial cinema, cannot rely merely on a transformation of the cinematic image.
Nor can it be content to introduce a newly heterogeneous cinematic grammar
through the juxtaposition of image and text. Por último, such a cinematic investi-

23.
Maurice Lemaître, Le film est déjà commencé? Séance de cinéma, preface by Jean-Isidore Isou
(París: A. Bonne, 1952). This volume is part of the “Encyclopédie du Cinéma” collection edited by
André Bonne. One edition contained a paper band with the words “Un Pirandello du Cinéma.”

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Más allá de la caja negra

gation must confront the institutional and exhibitionary frameworks within which
the projection and spectatorship of the moving image takes place: the ways in
which our unconscious beliefs about the nature and purpose of cinema condition
our reception of that encounter before we even enter the cinematic theater. As if
to underline the point, Lemaître begins the work already before its “beginning,"
relocating it from the theater’s interior to the street outside:

a portable, rose-colored screen ringed with neon is installed before
the entrance of the cinema and D.W. Griffith’s Intolerance is project-
ed for an hour before the film is to begin. . . . Some actors who have
infiltrated the waiting crowd will begin to insult others. To stop a
scandal from beginning, the doors of the theater will burst open
and a group of all ages will rush out of the theater. They will form an
excited group in front loudly exclaiming their disgust for the film
they are about to see.24

Inside the theater, Lemaître continues to modulate our experience of the
spectacle’s boundaries, moving ceaselessly between the multiple frames of our expe-
rience. The whole theatrical preface described above is enacted, while actors
playing angry spectators loudly interject their disapproval of the film and exaspera-
tion with its director. As the scripted events are being acted out in the theater, nosotros
simultaneously hear them being called out as stage directions to be acted upon. Como
the lights darken and the projection begins, the audience—now seated comfortably

He continues, “They will place themselves in front of the outdoor screen and interject their
24.
wild approval. The director will attempt to dissuade those waiting in line to see the film. He will begin
to insult the couples, proposing to give them money to get a motel room instead.” Lemaître also trans-
poses our expectations for historical punctuality: at a time in which repertory film theaters were still
uncommon, and many of the early masterworks of the medium were unable to be seen, Lemaître sub-
stitutes the experience of an old-fashioned classic for the anticipated experience of the latest thing.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

OCTUBRE

Lemaître. Has the
Film Begun? 1951.

in their seats—hears an audience fumbling around in the dark trying to take their
seats, while a voiceover describes this imaginary spectacle taking place. A title card
prohibiting smoking in the theater appears on the screen, and we hear altercations
breaking out within the audience—altercations that are, En realidad, solely the province
of the soundtrack. On the screen, the concluding scene of a Western begins and
then begins again. A title card reads: “THE FILM HAS BEGUN / BY MAURICE LEMAÎTRE /
COMING SOON TO THIS SCREEN / YOU’LL FIND OUT THE CULPRIT / THE END / NEXT WEEK”
después de lo cual, the screen goes dark and the house lights come up while a voice simul-
taneously describes the screen going dark and the house lights coming up. Mientras
people are still complaining about finding their seats, we hear new people com-
plaining about the lights going up. The lights go back down, and while a series of
title cards play up the excitement of Lemaître’s film as a coming attraction, gente
in the audience now point out the rudeness of someone presumably smoking in
defiance of the prohibition recently shown.

By this point, with at least part of the audience likely exasperated, it may very
well have been impossible to determine what was part of the film and what was out-
side of it, what was staged and what was real. Superimposing multiple levels of
representación, Has the Film Begun? elicits the experience of multiple temporalities
running in parallel, coming together at specific moments before again breaking
apart. For that potentially revolutionary audience Isou had described as “le genera-
tion des ciné-clubs,” Lemaître’s Has the Film Begun? proposed a cinematization of life,
as well as its redundant theatrical orchestration, in a mise-en-abyme.

What Lemaître described as the “transformation of cinematographic repre-
sentation into a theatrical combination” would come to have great currency over

Toward a New Amplification

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Más allá de la caja negra

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

t he next decade in t he work of Robert Breer, Bruce Conner, and St an
VanDerBeek, among others.25 This layered disjunction of space and spectatorship,
of site and psyche, would emerge as a recurrent theme within the evolution of the
expanded cinema in the postwar era. Lemaître’s fellow Lettrist Marc’O (Bagazo-
Gilbert Guillaumin) described Lemaître’s explorations as involving the “three
dimensional psychology” of the cinematic situation. In a 1952 treatise, he con-
cluded that “what acts” within this new mode of aesthetic practice “is not so much
the transmitter (producer of sensation), but the manner in which reception is pre-
pared (the spectator brought to a particular state of receptivity.)”26 The idea that the
modern artist should concern himself with psychological states of “receptivity” was
almost unprecedented in the discourse of the period, yet it prefigured the later turn
toward “reception aesthetics” within art and film theory decades later. De hecho, fue
just this shift of emphasis—from the brute materiality of artistic production toward
the institutional framing of spectatorial reception—that would connect many of the
diverse currents of expanded cinema and intermedia art over the next twenty years.

Since the birth of cinema, Marc’O claims, we have seen a constant transforma-
tion in the spatial framing of cinematic projection. But while cinema has always been
dramatically affected by the diversity of its situations, these have been treated merely
as technical problems to be mastered rather than artistic elements to be explored.27 This is
why, for Marc’O, the most fundamental basis for a future art of the moving image
lies in the investigation and development of these kinds of framing, both in the
manner in which they engender particular forms of spectatorial receptivity, y el

Maur ice Lemaître, capítulo 4, sect ion C, Qu’est-ce que le lettrisme? ( Par is: Édit ions

25.
Fischbacher, 1954).
26.
“Ce qui agit n’est plus l’émetteur (producteur de sensation), mais la réception préparée
(le spectateur amené à un état précis de réceptivité).” See “Introduction au Cinéma Nucléaire” in
Ion 1, ed. Marc-Gilbert Guillaumin (París: Centre de création, 1952; repr. 1999), pag. 245. Ion 1, a “spe-
cial issue on cinema,” was the first and only issue of Marc’O’s Lettrist journal to be produced.
Ibídem., páginas. 250–51. All further quotes from Marc’O are from this section.
27.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

OCTUBRE

Lemaître. Has the
Film Begun? 1951.

effects of distortion and transformation they effect upon the representation of
things in the world. This new model of avant-garde practice is oriented not only
toward the deconstruction of cinematic grammar, but toward a much wider
deconstruction and re-articulation of the total cinematic situation, as under-
stood in both mater ial and psychological terms. Following Isou, Marc’O
contends that traditional cinema—bloated and stalled due to its mastery of over-
familiar conventions—must be understood as raw material for the artist to hack
apart and recombine into new configurations. Todavía, following Lemaître, Marc’O
counsels that this “chiseling” or “deconstruction” of preexisting visual culture
was but a way-point toward the positive construction of new audiovisual situa-
ciones, a new “amplification” making use of precisely those framing elements
previously considered marginal to the cinematographic event. Curiosamente
suficiente, he anticipates the most severe resistance to this project arising amongst
the “intellectuals of the ciné-clubs” as well as the cinematic avant-garde itself.
He writes: “the intellectual of the ciné-club admires the avant-garde insofar as it
is safely “classical” and “past” while “the avant-garde will always be the first to
believe in an immutable essence to cinema. It is the worst reactionary whenever
faced with a new avant-garde.”

Guy Debord would explicitly credit Marc’O in his “Prolegomena to Any
Future Cinema,” written for the Lettrist journal Ion. In words that lean heavily on
Isou and Lemaître, Debord writes,

Values related to artistic creation are being displaced by a condi-
tioning of the spectator, with what I have called three dimensional
psychology and the nuclear cinema of Marc’O., a cinema that
begins another phase of amplification. The arts of the future will
be the complete overturning of situations, or nothing at all.28

28.

“Les arts futurs seront des bouleversements de situations, ou rien.” Guy Debord, “Prolégomènes

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Más allá de la caja negra

Gil J. Wolman, who would co-author “User’s Guide to Détournement ” with
Debord, provided a model of this in his film installation The Anticoncept at the
Museé de l’Homme in Paris. True to the Lettrist spirit, the work’s soundtrack
consisted of a wildly heterogeneous array of sonic elements, literary references,
organic and mechanical sounds, and rhetorical word play. Against this sonic
complejidad, sin embargo, Wolman’s film was devoid of photographic imagery, representar-
sentational or non-representational signs, or anything else that could possibly
be “read.” It consisted merely of an alternation—not evenly spaced and monot-
onous, but irregularly syncopated in a complex rhythm—of white discs upon a
black ground. These discs were projected not onto a traditional cinematic
pantalla, but onto a white, helium-filled meteorological balloon leashed to the
floor. The stroboscopic visuality was, en un sentido, “anchored” to this concrete,
three-dimensional—yet curiously weightless—object. Since the projected disc
conformed to the shape of the ball upon which it was projected, the ball itself
seemed to change in appearance, pulsing rhythmically with a brilliant luminos-
it y. Despite lacking any themat ic content , Wolman’s film was banned on
account of its “subversive” character, and the Lettrists’ concerted effort to lift
the restriction was to no avail.

Scorned by proponents of both conventional and independent cinema, el
Lettrist works were similarly derided by institutions of plastic art and performance.
Isou and Lemaître quickly discovered that film-making was an expensive proposition.
Even using recycled film, the paltry sums raised by their screenings were unable to

à tout cinema futur,” Ion, pag. 219, repr. in Documents relatifs á la fondation de l’Internationale Situationniste, ed.
Gérard Berréby (París: Allia, 1985), pag. 109. Debord’s term situations can signify location, contexto, site, como
well as state of being, his term bouleversement additionally connotes convulsion or trembling, as it intention-
ally recalls André Breton’s famous Surrealist dictum from Nadja, “Beauty will be convulsive, or it will not
be” as well as the revolutionary political syntax of Thiers before the French National Assembly in 1872,
“The Republic will be conservative, or it will not be.”

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

OCTUBRE

Lemaître. Has the
Film Begun? 1951.

cover their expenses. Within a few years, they were forced to return to the more tra-
ditional, saleable forms of canvas and print. Yet despite its limited production and
tenuous reception, this spectacular eruption of cinematic inquiry served to revitalize
the question of an “other cinema” that had begun within Dada and Constructivist
practice decades before. In questioning the most fundamental norms by which cine-
matic production, exhibition, and spectatorship had been imagined, the Lettrist
works provided postwar artists with a powerful alternative to the model of the “art
film” then becoming cemented as the epitome of the medium within the interna-
tional festival circuit. Inaugurating such diverse fields as the essay film, el
film-performance, and the film-installation, the aesthetic and conceptual import of
these early works would become known only in retrospect, through the vast range of
“other cinema” that would emerge over the course of the next two decades.29

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
oh
C
t
oh
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
1
7
5
3
4
1
6
oh
C
t
oh
_
a
_
0
0
0
1
9
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

29.
As has by now been well documented, Debord would eventually view the “essay film”—an exten-
sion of Isou’s foundational Treatise —as a vital complement to his philosophical writing throughout his
later career. The written and cinematic work of Guy Debord has been addressed in a now wide-ranging lit-
erature. See Thomas Y. Levin, “Dismantling the Spectacle: The Cinema of Guy Debord,” in On the Passage
of a Few People Through a Rather Brief Moment in Time: The Situationist International 1957–1972, ed. Elisabeth
Sussman (Cambridge, Masa.: CON prensa, 1989), pag. 123 fn. 181; Tom McDonough, ed., Guy Debord and the
Situationist International: Texts and Documents (Cambridge, Masa.: CON prensa, 2002); Complete Cinematic Works:
Scripts, Stills, and Documents, ed. and trans. Ken Knabb (Oakland, California: AK Press, 2003). A collection of
Debord’s cinematic work was released on DVD by Gaumond in 2005. Más allá de la caja negra: imagen

Descargar PDF