On the question of “performative” structures in film, Ross Macleay wrote:

>Different media, different mechanics, different communicative functions,
>different terminological distinctions. Film, video, speech, print, all
>different.

I couldn’t agree more.

I'll admit, the term "performative" is a tempting one, because it appears to
get at what contemporary non-fiction film is “doing” above and beyond simple
self-reference.

The problem with this linguistic term, and most other linguistic terms when
applied to film for that matter, is that it becomes a _very _ sloppy
metaphor when applied to audio-visual media. Quite simply put, the
structures of performative language simply do not map onto film.

I’ve thought about this from many different angles, and it always seems to
boil down to two equally insurmountable obstacles: the first is film
“language” and the second is the question of documentary reference.

1) Regarding the question of “film language.”  According to Austin,
performative utterances are statements in the “first person singular
indicative active” like “I pronounce you man and wife.”  You yourself
pointed to the difficulty arising from the temporal gap between a recorded
profilmic event and its reception.  Let’s bracket this for a moment just to
try and compare an Austinian utterance with its filmic counterpart.

Even if we were to hypothetically reduce the competing layers of
audio-visual communication in a film so that in the case of a “first-person”
documentary the filmmaker/author could stand in for the singular agent “I,”
it is very difficult to imagine a properly performative action that film
could “perform” rather than just refer to.  Take the implied statement, for
example, of a fairly common self-reflexive documentary technique: the
filmmaker shooting themselves in a mirror.  The statement here would be
something like “I am filming (myself filming).”  This is _not _ a
performative utterance, it is referring to an action, not doing it!  Sure
there is an element of performance or theatricality here, but performance is
not performativity!

2) This leads us directly into the question of reference.  In Austin’s
terms, what distinguishes the performative utterance from normal speech is
that the performative is not constative – that is to say, the validity of
the statement is not dependent on outside reference: the statements “I
promise” or “I sentence you…” are the actions in themselves and cannot be
disproved or contested on grounds that they do not correspond correctly to
referents in the world we share.

Here’s the sticking point: by definition, if a film is a documentary it
_always _ refers outward from itself.  Sure there are moments of formalized,
stylistic excess in contemporary documentaries whose primary purpose may be
something other than reference to the outside world.  Non-reference is not,
however, in and of itself performativity – there are rules governing what
may be said, and who may say it in order to produce a “felicitous,”
performative utterance.

To sum up my position in a nutshell, I think that the theory of documentary
“performativity” has confused two distinct tendencies in contemporary
documentary: the presence of performance content and non-constative formal
mechanisms in contemporary documentary, with a singular structural concept
in linguistics.

Even if the project of film semiotics hadn’t been a total failure, and we
could “unbracket” the points I set aside above at which film and spoken
language simply don’t match up, and someone could actually tell me what a
cinematic “utterance” is, I don’t think that the term “performative”
properly describes what documentary film is actually doing (i.e. arguing &
describing).

It certainly would be satisfying to find a nice, succinct term for the
flavor of theatrical reflexivity we get in contemporary non-fiction (this is
actually something I’m working on at the present), but I’m afraid that when
most people say “performative” they really mean “performance-ive,” and thus
I’m in favor of tossing out this misleading terminus technicus and starting
over from scratch.
Analytical terminology should bring clarity to a discussion, not muddy the
waters further.

Matthew Niednagel
Princeton U.

-----Original Message-----
From: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Ross Macleay
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 11:49 pm
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Brit Reflexive Documentaries


On the distinctions between performative (interactive) and reflexive - and
thinking back to Austin at the same time - a performative film/video would
have to imply a certain self-reference to its performance - to how it is to
be taken, to what kind of filmic/video act it is, to how it is acting in
filming/recording and showing -  and therefore, to that extent, it would
have to be reflexive. The distinction becomes blurred because the
performative (and interactive) have to be parasitic on the reflexive.
(Incidentally
is the fiction/non-fiction divide a performative distinction?).

A problem with applying a term like performative from speech act theory to
film/video theory is the more or less non-dialogic character of film and the
delay between filming and showing. Does interactivity in this discussion
imply interactivity with those filmed, not those watching the film?
Is performative a term more likely to be applied to the showing? What about
the interactive news vision of Arafat and Rabin shaking hands for the
cameras? Who is performing this
declaration? The politicians, their minders, the news media, the doco maker
who uses the shot 10 years later? For whom and for what? Where is the
interactivity? Different
media, different mechanics, different communicative functions, different
terminological distinctions. Film, video, speech, print, all different. How
and to what extent do the distinctions in media - 35mm, 16, 8, video,
digital - condition performative uses?

Ross