Michele, again I like what you say. Your description of Mouchette is
certainly apposite,
and your remarks about the movement of the camera inscribing the possibility
of a relationship between bodies is, I think, spot on. Although for the
viewer, this relationship is sublimated, and perhaps only conscious for the
cinematographer (a type not known for being very articulate, so it remains a
kind of mysterious aspect of the craft).

Your reference to the projector throwing light at the screen - and if you
look at the beam you can see the movement in it - prompts me to add that
this means the grain is in the light (the same way that the grain of the
voice is in the sound). Normally it's invisible, but if the exposure is
pushed, you get to see it, because it reveals itself as a physical property
of the film strip.

This gives rise to a paradox. I guess most people would grant that sound
cannot be perceived except in the dimension of time (however brief) -
everyone knows that sound comes in waves - but we don't readily think of
light in that way (though there are probably some physicists who do). Yet in
the case of film it is surely correct to say that light moves, because here
it _is_ movement and there is no movement without it. This takes us back to
your earlier remark that "the 'grain' of the film image must be something
that is situated in the gap between the film/text and the
spectator/subject." Because it needs the viewing subject for it to be
perceived.

Boris asks "how the question about 'grain' contributes to our knowledge
about films?". Depends what you mean by knowledge, I suppose. The question
itself may be legitimate, but what follows is abusive, out of order, and
beside the point. Perhaps Boris hasn't realised that watching movies is
first and foremost a _sensuous_ experience.

Michael Chanan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Michelle
> Langford
> Sent: 28 October 1999 09:51
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Help with Barthes quotation
>
>
> Michael, I think that several aspects of your reply are certainly
> essential to
> any possible concept of the 'grain' of in cinema.
>
> Michael Chanan wrote:
>
> > So whatever equivalent we hit on in film must similarly
> > pertain to the image in movement. It will not be the same as for a
> > photograph, let alone any other kind of still image.
>
> Indeed movement should perhaps be our first criteria. In the cinema we are
> dealing with movement on many levels. Firstly, of course we have
> the movement
> of the film through the projector. Look back at the projection booth and
> perceive the gesture of the projector as it  literally 'throws'
> light at the
> screen. The gesture of 'throwing', however is not as imprecise an
> action as it
> might at first appear, for what is thrown (light) lands within a
> rectangular
> frame. This gesture is what rexults in that 'first moment' that
> you mentioned
> 'when the blank screen comes to life'.
> If the 'grain' manifests itself at this point it does so through a gesture
> (albeit a mechanical one) and, more importantly, through the relationship
> _between_ the spectator and that gesture. Your exception of television and
> video monitors in this case is pertinent. (Television might well
> have it's own
> 'grain' but it would certainly differ from a cinematic 'grain')
> Secondly, (the appearance of) movement occurs on screen. We
> observe figures as
> they move through space (and time). Notice how Mouchette seems to move
> reluctantly through space in Bresson's film, pushed (or perhaps
> pulled) along
> by the  disproportionately loud clomp, clomp of her clogs. (The clogs from
> which she eventually escapes when they become bogged in the mud).
> The gestural
> effort of moving through space for Mouchette is at moments
> effaced by attendant
> moments of lightness, such as when she prepares the morning coffee while
> cheerfully humming a tune. There is something about the use of
> the body and
> gestures in a film such as _Mouchette_ that reaches out into the
> space between
> the bodies on screen and the body of the spectator. It is an
> affective relation
> between two bodies.
> Thirdly, there is the movement of the camera, and the 'movement'
> from one view
> or space to another effected by editing. Both, I think, offer the
> possibility
> of a relationship between bodies. (Godard's  _foetal_  position
> might indeed
> give us a clue here—in fact I often take off my shoes and curl up
> into a tight
> ball in my seat, almost resting my head on my knees in the cinema)
>
> > There is another experience I sometimes have in the cinema and never
> > watching a tv set. Sometimes, as the film is running its
> course, the flat
> > screen takes on a strange sort of shimmer of depth, it detaches
> itself from
> > the dark sorround and seems to float in front of me. It is best at such
> > moments to keep entirely still - an unwonted movement of the
> head can break
> > the the effect. These are the moments when I catch myself
> thinking _this_ is
> > why I love the cinema.
>
> Unlike when in a car where you move your body in opposition to
> the movement of
> the car by way of compensation, in the cinema movement is
> perceived through
> keeping still. This is a sensation that only the cinema enables.
>
>
> Fourthly, the movement of time is, as you suggest crucial. But I
> need to think
> further on this point.
>
> Michelle Langford
>
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%