In the first week of Introduction to Film Studies, we have watched two films and read an article. Walter Benjamin wrote “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” in 1936 when humanity was still growing accustomed to industrialization. Although Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s Amelie (2001) and David Fincher’s Fight Club (1999) were released to a much more modern era, the ideas Benjamin raises about the interplay between art of society also apply to these films. The question we face is if the promotion of narrative as the essence of film proves to be a “criminal error” due to the transforming effects film technology allows.
Before the screening of Amelie, we were told to take careful notice of details. Through the film, I realized how many instances of close-up shots and slow motion sequences were used to tell Amelie’s story. The narrative heeds to the film’s ability to overwhelm the senses and capture the minutiae of daily life. With Amelie, reality is reworked and presented back as an enhanced work of art. This concept is in accordance with Walter Benjamin’s observation that “with close-up, space expands; with slow motion, movement is extended.” The question isn’t whether or not the Amelie’s narrative is compelling, but rather if the narrative strikes the audience the same way the film’s artistry does. In my opinion, with Amelie, the camera reveals a new understanding of the world and of relationships. One scene that stood out to me takes place when Amelie creates an explanation Nino’s lateness that includes fantastical elements that would seem completely unreal, yet in the context of the film are not so farfetched. Film technology’s formation of an optical unconscious provides for a deeper aesthetic and emotional experience than would have been found with pure narrative.
After reading and discussing Benjamin’s article, I expected to notice the same level of visual dynamics in during the screening of Fight Club. Surprisingly, the narrative was the dominant, or arguably equal, source of the shock value I received from the film. Although the lighting and close-ups set the mood, I would not have been convinced of the bizarre situations taking place without the role of the narrative. With Fight Club, I think film technology helps enhance the surreal appearances of the fights and explosions, but the most influential elements of the film stem from the narrative. I think that the shocking revelations paired with Tyler Durden’s quotable statements produce the essence of the well- renowned film. When Tyler Durden says, “It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything,” the impact hits harder than any slow-motion shot of an explosive’s timer or close-up of a bloody punch. So in the case of Fight Club, I think the so-called “criminal error” does not exist in the same magnitude as it does with Amelie.
Considering the polar reactions I had to the two films on the basis of this question, I must say that there isn’t one answer. Every piece of art should be considered in its own right. Both sides can be supported and refuted depended on the viewer and the work at hand. I think that the beauty of any art is that it affects every person in a different way. A dialectical thinker, Benjamin formed a similar conclusion about the mechanical reproductions of art. He understood that society could benefit from technology’s ability to transform the senses of the masses but also that the “auratic relationship” is consequentially lost from art’s ritual context. I think I can see both sides of the value of the narrative and the effects of film on society after being exposed to these three works.
