Henry, you should know me better than to accuse me of of a) anti-
Americanism and b) snobbery towards mainstream films - American
movies and the mainstream are our bread and butter, after all.
You're forgetting the element of enjoyment. There is profound
enjoyment in all these scare-fantasies about surveillance. And as
regards infantile narcissism, I don't exclude myself from it. Are you
really worried about Echelon? Do you have something to hide from
Uncle Sam? Who will handle the zillions of information data of just
one day?
There was a big political scandal in Switzerland in the late 80s/
early 90s when the public found out that a sort of homegrown mini-
Stasi had kept political files on hundreds of thousands of citizens.
For a short while, applicants were granted access to these documents
- and what a disappointment if you happened to be someone they hadn't
kept tabs on. It sort of diminished your significance.
H
> That isn't true, about 'Deja Vu', is it? There aren't cameras, as
> such, it's a wormhole. Reality isn't manipulated via camera, it's
> manipulated by DW going through thw wormhole.
>
> It would be easier to reply to this kind of question if it wasn't
> larded with knee-jerk anti-Americanism and snobbery towards mainstream
> films and their viewers, to be honest. too many assumptions being made
> about 'other' (non-philosopher) viewers.
>
> the viewer is provided a feeling of (infantile-narcissistic)
> omnipotence
>
> are they?
>
> while at the same time reassured that surveillance is, after all,
> visible to him/her
>
> is that reassuring?
>
> while, in a post-Foucault movement, reassured that the Big Other's
> all-perceiving gaze guarantees his/her own existence within the field
> of the symbolic.
>
> who are the viewers you're talking about, who feel their
> existence-within-the-field-of-the-symbolic is guaranteed by the "gaze"
> (scrutiny) of the Big Other (USUK intelligence). i don't think anyone
> is very reassured by the idea of echelon surveillance, for example;
> who is?
>
> On 8/29/07, Evgeni V. Pavlov <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Henry,
>>
>> Thanks for an interesting angle, esp. vis-a-vis the difference
>> between soviet and american traditions of intelligence, which is
>> very clearly presented by, say, bourne films and The Lives of Others,
>> i wonder if you could recommend a good study on this subject. the
>> emphasis on the visual, it seems, works much better in terms of
>> trying
>> to represent the process (or rather to imagine how it would look in
>> an ideal state, a sort of "ideal surveillance situation" may habermas
>> forgive me) - i wonder in this case if film representation is
>> actually
>> influencing the actual development of surveillance and not the other
>> way around?
>>
>> in the last bourne film there's a scene where CIA folks are following
>> an operation in which a former CIA fellow is about to be eliminated,
>> however, the operation takes place in Morocco where they don't
>> have as
>> much surveillance as in London for the filmmakers to incorporate into
>> the scene, so they do a rather amusing and clearly childish thing
>> where
>> CIA bosses stare at the map of Tangir and the agent and his target
>> are
>> represented with cure little moving dots. in another scene they
>> have a
>> fellow with a camera on a motorcycle following a suspect - it
>> looked like
>> it was very uncomfortable for the guy to ride a bike and hold a
>> camera, and
>> of course every agent in the field has a small digital camera -
>> they are even
>> attached to a gun in one scene. all of this, i wonder, just so
>> that people
>> back at the office have something to look at, even if it very
>> likely needlessly
>> complicates the actual surveillance.
>>
>> in any case, i wonder if this visual aspect of surveillance could
>> be likened to
>> the very essence of cinema itself - this time it's a kind of
>> fantastic reality TV
>> with a watchful eye of the camera (not necessarily people behind
>> the camera as most
>> of the surveillance visuals are just there and no one is really
>> watching them)
>> following bad guys - to a point that, as in that Deja Vu film that
>> came out not
>> while ago with Denzel Washington playing ATF agent investigating
>> an explosion,
>> cameras allow us to manipulate reality. any thoughts?
>>
>> evgeni
>>
>>
>>
>> --- "Henry M. Taylor" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Evgeni,
>>>
>>>
>>> as I'm still (!) engaged with research dealing with paranoia and
>>> conspiracy in film, the question of surveillance is of obvious
>>> relevance and interest. You certainly ask some pertinent
>>> questions. I
>>> haven't seen the Bourne Ultimatung yet - though I'm acquainted with
>>> the rather good original tv serial from the 80s these remakes/
>>> sequels
>>> are based on, as well as having watched the Bourne Supremacy, which
>>> was entertaining but quite forgettable.
>>>
>>> If it were so easy to just track and, if necessary, eliminate
>>> someone
>>> someplace on the globe, how come the CIA, Special Forces, NSA etc.
>>> etc. haven't been able to catch Osama Bin Laden yet?
>>>
>>> This whole technological surveillance 'utopia' (or dystopia,
>>> depending on your POV) strikes me as a very American thing. If you
>>> look at the history of intelligence agencies, espionage and the
>>> secret services and compare those in the US with those in the former
>>> Soviet Union, you will find different traditions at work. The
>>> Americans have always been gung-ho about cost-intensive
>>> technological
>>> (especially visual) surveillance and intelligence-gathering, while
>>> the Soviets/Russians tended to focus on (linguistic) human
>>> intelligence: what is called 'trade craft': the legwork and hands-on
>>> type of dirty work (sexual blackmailing, etc.). Which was/is
>>> presumably also driven by budgetary considerations.
>>>
>>> From a filmic POV, the viewer is provided a feeling of (infantile-
>>> narcissistic) omnipotence, while at the same time reassured that
>>> surveillance is, after all, visible to him/her, while, in a post-
>>> Foucault movement, reassured that the Big Other's all-perceiving
>>> gaze
>>> guarantees his/her own existence within the field of the symbolic.
>>>
>>> Does this make sense?
>>>
>>> H
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> greetings, i'm new to the list so pardon me if this was already a
>>>> topic of discussion. i'm more on
>>>> the "philosophy" side of the equation, so pardon that as well. i
>>>> went to see the final installment
>>>> of the bourne films - Bourne Ultimatum - which, as i expected, was
>>>> visually entertaining but
>>>> nothing more, a rather banal and paranoid idea but, and here is my
>>>> main question, i also happened
>>>> to watch Das Leben der Anderen (Lives of Others) a day before (it
>>>> just came out on DVD in the US)
>>>> and i found myself wondering about a number of issues related to
>>>> the representation of
>>>> surveillance. in the bourne film we see, as in many other films
>>>> lately, a kind of a surveillance
>>>> paradise where bosses in Virginia are able to track and actually
>>>> observe the movements of their
>>>> agents in London. so here are some questions that i'd be happy to
>>>> engage with anyone interested
>>>> (note that i'm still mulling over these ideas and haven't done any
>>>> actual research or serious
>>>> thinking for that matter):
>>>>
>>>> 1. what is the actual state of surveillance compared to that in the
>>>> films like Bourne Ultimatum?
>>>> it seems rather easy to locate anyone of the globe, track their
>>>> movements, send instant txt
>>>> messages to an army of disposable assassins - i wonder if there is
>>>> a good study of actual
>>>> capabilities and a comparison with a kind of imaginary surveillance
>>>> utopia.
>>>>
>>>> 2. while Das Leben der Anderen leaves one (among other things) with
>>>> a kind of nightmarish feeling
>>>> of being watched, even if a hero is partially redeemed in the end,
>>>> most of American
>>>> representations of surveillance function on the bases of a kind of
>>>> "perverse utilitarianism" - as
>>>> long as we are saving OUR lives, it is ok, not very comfortable but
>>>> for the sake of security - in
>>>> fact, the whole premise of Bourne films is this stepping over the
>>>> line, not the line itself. what
>>>> does this dream (if it is as unrealistic as i suspect) tell us
>>>> about contemporary western society?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> evgeni v. pavlov
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|