Ceddo

Getino and Solanas’ discussion of the power of film over the audience in two completely contrasting ways debunks Benjamin’s argument regarding the immobile, unengaged spectator. Although Benjamin stated that the audience does engage in the art of film like that of the painting, Getino and Solanas clearly present two instances where film has absolute control over the audience and the spectators become more than engaged in the “art” (though they argue that film in this sense is no longer even seen aesthetically).
I was intrigued by the two opposing effects that film can have over the audience – that of mass neutralizing and that of mass activation. In lecture, Hollywood was described as a “mass homogenizing umbrella,” producing films that limit the audience to remain solely spectators even beyond the viewing of the film. This idealized film neutralizes the audience, rendering the spectators inactive due to their belief in their own inferiority. Hollywood, like the bourgeoisie “myth makers” that Barthes discusses, has the ability to manipulate the “language” of society to make whatever images that they show appear to represent reality. Through film’s engagement of the spectators who are subconsciously brought together by Anderson’s idea of the “imagined community”, Hollywood has the power to create societal norms.
The other effect of film that opposes Hollywood’s inactive effect is the power of Third Cinema. Third Cinema has the power to bring people together and strip them of their individuality – not in a deteriorating manner, but in a productive political sense. Third Cinema forms an active community by bringing people together in a political act.
The difference between these two films? The presentation of the images as well as the images themselves that they present – Hollywood ideologies that numb the people verses Third Cinema folklore that Gabriel describes as able to “redefine and redeem what the official versions of history has overlooked.” (57)
In watching Ceddo, the Third Cinema quality was blaring. The entire film was revolved around oral tradition and speaking to the people to call them to action – the characters yelled their lines as though they were yelling so that the audience themselves could hear them. The idea of a private conversation in a public setting that was discussed in lecture regarding cell phones was apparent in the film in many instances, with the private drama rupturing the silent public.
There were several aspects of the film that I was intrigued by and would like to discussed. One was the idea of the mirror around the character’s neck and made the connection to Keenan’s idea of blaring light – the glare from the sun blinded the camera at some points while the character was fighting. Also, I was confused by the symbolic mural that the camera focused on that depicted the man reaching for a religious figure and being pulled back by the mass of people. What was that representing? In addition, the silent public dressed in blue was really interesting to me, and I have been debating whether or not I would classify them as an active or passive audience. Perhaps they are not supposed to be either one, but just a mode in which the filmmaker makes the audience feel as though they are a part of this mass public that is actually witnessing the events – in a way, acting as Geiger and Rutsky’s “third person” to take away from the one-on-one conversation that possesses a private, superior, Hollywood quality. Also, whenever an actor would require a relayer for the conversation, as in they would ask someone to repeat a sentence to someone else even though they were standing immediately in front of them, the relayer would never repeat it. Is this the idea of the public being a missed target and the message never actually being translated? Perhaps the speaker is like the people trying to get a message out to the public, the relayer is like the TV, and the receiving end is like the public – never fully presented with the information.