Mark Bould
Best Foot Forward
Vivian Sobchack.
Carnal Thoughts: Embodiment and Moving Image Culture. Berkeley: U
of California P, 2004. xi + 328pp. $24.95 pbk.
Vivian Sobchack is probably best known in sf studies for Screening Space:
The American Science Fiction Film (1980; expanded edition 1987), which is
still the pre-eminent monograph on its subject, although her major
accomplishment in film studies is The Address of the Eye: A Phenomenology of
Film Experience (1992). This polemical and rigorously theoretical work,
based in existential phenomenology and particularly the ideas of Maurice
Merleau-Ponty, issued a major corrective to film theory’s conceptualization of
film-viewing. It argued for the reinstatement of the
material-cultural-historical being of both the viewer and the film, without
falling into the (frequently pseudo-)ethnography that came to the fore in the
1990s or subordinating the experience of watching a film to
discursive-ideological-critical interpretation. Carnal Thoughts collects
a dozen essays that elaborate upon this project with grace, wit, and insight.
Although it discusses a number of sf films in passing, sf is not its object—but
that does not keep it from being essential reading for the serious student of sf.
The last decades have seen a proliferation of attempts to analyze and
theorize "the body," most often casting it, intentionally or not, as just
another text. Sobchack instead repeatedly inquires "what it is to live
one’s body" and "foreground[s] embodiment—that is, the lived body as, at once,
both an objective subject and a subjective object: a sentient,
sensual, and sensible ensemble of materialized capacities and agency that
literally and figurally makes sense of, and to, both ourselves and others" (2).
She considers films, documentaries, and advertisements; news stories and medical
case studies; a friend’s cosmetic surgery and the implications of amputee
athlete-model Aimee Mullins; the Susie Scribbles doll and other automata; the
films of Krzysztof Kieslowski and the fiction of Jean-Paul Sartre and Bruno
Schulz; postmodern, cyborg, and prosthetic theory; film reviews, personal
correspondence, figurative language, jokes, and cartoons; and her own experience
of embodiment—of watching films, of being female, of aging, of surgery, of her
above-the-knee amputation and her prosthetic leg. Carnal Thoughts is
chock-full of riches that just spin off ideas.
"Breadcrumbs in the Forest: Three Meditations on Being Lost in Space" begins
with the confession that "when I was a child, I always thought north was the way
I was facing" (13). The chapter discusses the radical difference between
Cartesian and perceptual space; notes how few American films actually depict the
quite common experience of being lost; outlines three different ways of being
lost—going around in circles (a past-oriented sense of the futility of purpose
because one always returns to where one has been), not knowing where you are (an
unstable present moment into which past and future have collapsed), and not
knowing how to get to where you want to go (a frustrated future-orientation
always on the cusp of resolution). She then uses the common enough image of men
being constitutionally incapable of asking directions to explore the gendered
socialization of attitudes towards and experience of social space. In all this,
the only mention of an sf text is a footnote that mentions The Brother from
Another Planet (Sayles 1984). Indeed, in researching films that represented
"being lost," Sobchack specifically excluded films "about being lost in ‘outer’
or ‘inner’ space" (21) or that "veered off into science fiction allegory" (22).
Why might this essay be of interest to the sf scholar? Two reasons spring to
mind.
First, a footnote explains that perhaps the reason that so many cinematic
scenes of being lost "tend to be displaced into the fantastic space of SF" is
because cinema itself "is made up of bits and pieces of discontinuous and
discontiguous time and space; the goal of both the cinematic apparatus and the
traditional narrative is to make these fragments cohere into a co-ordinated
geography the viewer can navigate." Therefore, by evoking "disorientation," the
cinema might remind the viewer of cinema’s foundational "incoheren[ce]" and the
allegorical or metaphorical capacities of sf offer a safe locus of displacement
(22). This hypothesis requires testing. It seems to confirm my reason for so
disliking Star Trek: Voyager (1995-2001), with its infantilized abyss in
which North, or Earth, is always the way that they are facing, and to chime with
Screening Space’s readings of such postfuturist sf movies as Repo Man
(Cox, 1984), Liquid Sky (Tsukerman, 1982), and The Adventures of
Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (Richter, 1984). But is this how
such hermeneutic-spatial sf films as Death and the Compass (Cox 1992),
Cube (Natali 1997), Pi (Aronofsky 1998), Dark City (Proyas
1998), Waxweb (Blair 1999), Possible Worlds (LePage 2000), and
Donnie Darko (Kelly 2001) work? And what about Primer (Carruth 2004),
which, despite being about time-travel, contains all three kinds of being lost?
Second, not only did Fredric Jameson argue that sf is a "spatial" genre but
he also pinned his influential account of the postmodern on a shift from the
temporal to the spatial. While one might have often wondered why Jameson found
it so difficult to navigate the Westin Bonaventure Hotel—after all, Gil Gerard
and Erin Gray had no such problems in Buck Rogers in the Twenty-Fifth Century
(1979-1981)—Sobchack prompts one to wonder just how much of our understanding of
postmodernity is predicated on gendered socialization robbing Jameson of the
ability to ask for directions. Sobchack, of course, is not so flippant, but her
work does point to the way in which Jameson’s disorientation—a key metaphor for
subjectivity under late capitalism—became disembodied. To the extent that sf
over the last twenty years has been understood through Jameson’s work on
postmodernity, it has tended to rework his materialist critique on the terrain
of (post-)Saussurean idealist linguistics, which itself operates homologously to
capital, separating itself out as a distinct and immaterial realm. Although
Sobchack does not address this directly, the challenge she poses (in "A Leg To
Stand On: Prosthetics, Metaphor, and Materiality") is to the academic adoption
of "the prosthetic" as "a sexy new metaphor that ... has become tropological
currency for describing a vague and shifting constellation of relationships
among bodies, technologies, and subjectivities" (207). Her challenge cannot help
but raise similar questions about Jameson’s co-optation of schizophrenia as a
metaphor for late-capitalist subjectivity. (This is not to claim an irrefutable
authenticity to the actual rather than metaphorical experience, but to
acknowledge that embodiment is at once both literal and figural.)
Sobchack’s own continued engagement with Jameson is most evident in "The
Scene of the Screen: Envisioning Photographic, Cinematic, and Electronic
‘Presence,’" which maps three perceptual-expressive technologies (the
photographic, the cinematic, and the electronic) onto his correlation of the
emerging cultural logics of realism, modernism, and postmodernism with the
shifts, in the 1840s, 1890s, and 1940s, from market capitalism to monopoly
capitalism to multinational capitalism. The "photographic" enabled "the
material control, containment, and objective possession of time and experience
... self-possession and then, at a later date when the technology is
portable and cheap, ... self-proliferation" (142-43; emphases in
original). The "cinematic radically reconstitute[d] the photographic,"
spatializing "a frozen point of view into dynamic and intentional trajectories
of self-displacing vision" and temporalizing "an essential moment into
lived momentum" (145; emphases in original). More importantly:
the cinema mechanically projected and made visible for the very first
time not just the objective world but the very structure and process of
subjective, embodied vision—hitherto only directly available to human beings
as an invisible and private structure that each of us experiences as "our
own." ... [T]he intentional temporal and spatial fluidity of the cinema
expresses and makes visible as well—and for the first time—the nonlinear and
multidirectional movements of subjectivity as it imagines, remembers,
projects forward. In this way the cinematic makes time visibly
heterogeneous. That is, we visibly perceive time as structured
differently in its subjective and objective modes, and we understand that
these two structures exist simultaneously in a demonstrable state of
discontinuity as they are, nonetheless, actively and constantly
synthesized as coherent in a specific lived-body experience (that is, a
particular, concrete, and spatialized history and a particularly
temporalized narrative). (149, 150-51; emphases in original)
Although Sobchack’s examples of this radical reconstitution are drawn from
moments in La Jetée (Marker 1962) and
Blade Runner (Scott, 1982) when still images are suddenly animated, her
argument again points to a fruitful area of study that she does not herself
pursue: the "invention" of cinema in the year Wells’s The Time Machine: An
Invention was published (1895), and the subsequent intertwining of the
medium’s and the genre’s engagement with temporality. The electronic "is
intimately bound up in a centerless, networklike structure of the present,
of instant stimulation and impatient desire, rather than in the photographic
nostalgia for the past or cinematic anticipation of the future" (153, emphasis
in orginal). It is
phenomenologically experienced not as a discrete, intentional,
body-centered mediation and projection in space but rather as a
simultaneous, dispersed, and insubstantial transmission across a network or
web that is constituted spatially more as a materially flimsy latticework of
nodal points than as the stable ground of embodied experience. (154)
Sobchack ends this trajectory on a cautionary note, reminding those who
embrace the electronic’s fantasy of disembodiment that "technology springs from
the very human condition of embodiment" (161). Two essays in particular build on
this understanding of cinema in relation to the photographic and the electronic.
"Scary Women: Cinema, Surgery, and Special Effects" considers Barbra
Streisand, Isabella Rossellini, the abjection of the older woman, cosmetic
surgery, Death Becomes Her (Zemeckis, 1992), J.G. Ballard’s "Princess
Margaret’s Face Lift" (1970), and revisits an earlier essay (not reprinted here)
on Attack of the 50-Ft. Woman (Juran, 1958), The Wasp Woman (Corman,
1959), and The Leech Woman (Dein, 1960), to argue that
Cinema is cosmetic surgery—its fantasies, its makeup, and its
digital effects able to ‘fix’ (in the doubled sense of repair and stasis)
and to fetishize and to reproduce faces and time as both ‘unreel’ before us.
And, reversibly, cosmetic surgery is cinema, creating us as an image
we not only learn to enact in a repetition compulsion, but also must—and
never can—live up to. (50, emphasis in original)
So in one direction, Sobchack connects very clearly to the work of people
such as Elaine Scarry, Donna Haraway, and Anne Balsamo, insisting on the
gendered political nature of the technologized world and our embodied habitation
of it. In another direction, she poses the problem of the digital.
"The Charge of the Real: Embodied Knowledge and Cinematic Consciousness" is
concerned with the filmic intermingling of actuality and fictionality. After
mapping out the various ways in which this happens—in Forrest Gump (Zemeckis,
1994), Contact (Zemeckis, 1997), Forgotten Silver (Botes and
Jackson, 1995), and other films, acknowledging in passing the way 1950s sf
movies cast "actual radio and television news celebrities to report on the
global progress of the encroaching menace to the planet" but not the typical
response (the deployment of stock footage of the military)—she returns to a
moment in La Règle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
that she discussed in a much earlier essay ("Inscribing Ethical Space: Ten
Propositions on Death, Representation, and Documentary," included in the
volume). She is expressly concerned with her different responses to the
respective shootings of a character and a rabbit in the film. While the actor
only pretends to be shot, the rabbit actually was. The rabbit’s death—when
actuality suddenly overwhelms fictionality—remains shocking to her, bringing
different existential and ethical investments into collision and reminding her
that "although documentary and fictional consciousness are incommensurable,
they are compossible in any given film" (275). She contrasts her response
to the film with that of some interlocutors who "were not particularly shocked
by the death of Renoir’s rabbit" but who had "however, expressed overall
boredom with the film and indicated that they had watched the whole of it in
a general and diffuse state of detachment" (274; emphasis in original). It is
perhaps significant that, despite beginning with Zemeckis’s films, in which the
cinematic is largely sublated by the electronic, the films on which she focuses
her concern are much more distinctly cinematic. About them, she concludes that
"charged with the real (and the obligations it imposes)," the documentary
consciousness and space evoked by the representation of actuality "are
ever-present possibilities in every film experience—even when that
experience begins and ends as a designated fiction" (285, emphasis in original).
But what happens when the charge of the real is overwhelmed by the digital?
Sobchack does not say, but her argument might explain why I still find the death
of Cooper and Schoedsack’s resolutely analog King Kong affecting, but that of
Jackson’s digital ape just a blessed (and too-long-belated) relief.
The beauty of Carnal Thoughts is its abundance. This review barely
scratches its surface. Every page seems to spark questions and ideas. I
constantly found myself wondering what Sobchack would make of this film or that
book, and I know I will be returning to it for years to come. Sobchack is among
the very best of us, and these essays are among her very best. They should not
be missed.
WORKS CITED
Sobchack, Vivian. Screening Space: The American Science Fiction Film.
Second ed. New York: Unger, 1987.
.-----. The Address of the Eye: A Phenomenology of Film Experience.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1992. |