After the second world war, and defeating of Nazis, new political and ideological waves have spread through the world. Particularly, in the1960s, movements of freedom and youth movements in France also have had effects on cinema. Until then, film theorists, such as Andre Bazin and Rudolf Arnheim, were more likely to centered upon formative and ontological issues of cinema by classifying it as a distinct production of art1. However, with the rise of political debates in the 1960s, cinema studies fall under the influence of political criticism of capitalism and the first world films, another known as cinema of Hollywood. By this way, Marxist perspective gains importance so as challenging of the first world cinema by saying that this is the cinema of bourgeoisie, it exposes nothing but the interests of ‘’hegemonic’’ class. In that sense, it is argued that cinema as an ‘’ideological apparatus’’ to reproduce theidea of hegemony2. So, in this paper, it is proposed to reveal that how cinema is related with this idea of capitalist class, and how Marxist approach to film studies challenges the idea of hegemony by favoring the anti-Hollywood cinema andthe cinema of the counter.
In the first place, it might be functional to express the idea of capitalist class on cinema by Marxist theoreticians. Firstly, the approach of Louis Althusser, ‘’Ideology and State Apparatuses’’ is one of the referential points on film studies when describing the Marxist approach. By using the term of ‘’ideology’’, Althusser claims that it is a way toreproduce the power of bourgeoisie without the use of physical abuses, therefore people are more likely to internalize the terms of capitalist class without any resistance since ideological systems are seen as normative frames of society. It is an imaginary representation of the relation between the social habitus of individuals and their physical existence in the society3. In that sense, bourgeoisie has two different apparatus. One is about the legal apparatus of dominant classsuch as state and its institutions, other is ideological apparatus which is constructed through cultural artefacts such as cinema. Moreover, ideological apparatus has a role in positioning of social representations as ‘’everything is always like this’’. Exploitation and inequalities among different classes, races or genders, can be seen as ordinary and unalterable dynamics of communities.
Cinema and its mode of production have also parts in the reproduction of capitalist hegemony since it is a way toexpress the system of domination and impossibilities to run away from it. Spectators are reshaped by this ideological effect of cinema that they acknowledge their places in the society, therefore the existence of class inequalities. In this context, spectator itself is trapped in a cell of the capitalism where the identification of subjects on cultural and social forms are re-constructed by means of cinema. It can be saidthat the creation of camera mechanism is based on renaissance perspective to portray subjects bigger than their backgrounds in order to create the depth perception. However, this also brings about centralization of subjects on the frame. Hereby, subjects become the most important figures and human eyes are in the crucial role while angular perspective is constructed accordingly. The perception of perspective, therefore, inevitably pairs the illusion of reality that frames can be seen as fragments of reality. In this sense, the perspective of camera is seen as creating an illusion that every figure on the screen seems the depictions of reality. For Andre Bazin, by the camera obscura, the artist is in the position of creating reality by replacing its eyes to camera perspective, so the perspective itself transforms into the one who controls the camera4. It can be said that while camera images are controlled by subjects, they put also subjects in the center by frames. This relation between the subject and camera apparatus leads that camera becomes the tool of reproduction of ideologies by assigning its power to the subject. Therefore, it is claimed that bourgeoise ideology while controls the means of production also has the control on perspectives of camera that what spectator sees on the screen is constructed through it. In this point, it might be necessary to give two different approaches to the working principle of camera apparatus to illustrate how Marxist tradition informs cinema. Andre Bazin, as a formalist theorist, argues thatthe usage of camera is a way to depict the reality that everything can be captured in accordance their realistic existence. On the contrary, Louis Althusser would disagree the approach of Bazin since he sees the apparatus of camera as areproduction machine of ideologies. Having said that cinema as an ideological apparatus express the contradictions between different social constructs that it has a power to exposure of contradictions to transform masses intorevolutionary communities. In that sense, Althusser sees the cinema as a play maker while forcing the crowds for gathering against capitalist hegemony. As, it can be seen from this example, Marxist approach to cinema and camera apparatus is mostly related with its ideological existence by favoring only one dominant class. Thus, while classical cinema is highly dominated by this, Marxist approach puts forward counter subjects.
It is believed that according to Marxists, political cinema should be subjected and issued through recalcitrating Hollywood and its system of domination. Hollywood and its commercial cinema are seen as central places to reproduce the interest of capitalist class through the story and narrations. Also, it can be said that while the convention of dominant cinema is perceived as the depiction of reality, it becomes impossible to free spectators from the dominant ideology. To be able to achieve this, forms and narrative style of classical cinema are criticized and possibilities in changing of spectator are underlined. But what Marxist or anti-Hollywood theoreticians propose? First of all, they see that breaking the old forms of cinema and narrative could be a starting point. In that sense, Bertolt Brecht suggests the alienation approach between the spectator and the scene. Alienation, in the theory of Brecht, is emphasized as there is an imaginary wall to separate spectator and figures on the scene. By breaking the wall, Brecht aims to show the illusionary relationship that everything we see on the scene is re-constructed through social forms. He believes that this distinction leads that audience becomes passive elements of play, therefore they readily can accept what is offered. This methodology also can be counted as the starting concept of the counter cinema since it breaks the conventions of classical cinema bychallenging existing ideologies. By this way, the consciousness of audience starts to be more active than it ever was. The identification of spectator transforms into cultural and ideological recognition, it produces awakening that everything on the scene is seen as somehow fake or illustrated through subjects. In that sense, with the breaking of old conventions, audience must also produce meaning by their owns. Therefore, audience can be separated from the modes of productions to reproduce the ideology of bourgeoisie and seeks different meanings5. It is the challenge that Marxist tradition strives to establish when objecting the convention of Hollywood. Thus, it leads to foundation of countercinema or political cinema by influencing film makers.
Jean-Luc Godard, in that sense, is seen as a one of the most emergent film makers for Marxist approach that he uses the codes of deconstruction of classical cinema. In his films, it is generally seen that characters are liberated from gazes and usually speaks to the camera, therefore spectator itself. I will give two examples from his films to be more explicit. One is Tout va Bien (1972), in this film, we see that tracking shots establish the whole sets geographically, it is constructed to show original film set rather than reproducing an illusionist perception of space. In that sense, Godard demonstrates the mechanic function of cinema by transforming mode of production into more visible constructs. Moreover, throughout the film, it is seen that a narration about working-class is examined where owner of production is imprisoned by revolution movements in Paris, France. Another example to understand Godard approach to break the convention, is A Bout de Souffle (1960), despite the fact that the film was created before the ‘’Brechtian’’ concept settling on film studies, it has divergent elements of counter cinema since audience repeatedly is reminded that they see fictional characters. It has function to object the idea of heroism in a classical narrative. Also, application of hand-held cameras across the film, and usage of medium shots while Michel (one of the main characters) looking directly at the camera, provoke the narrative transitivity is destroyed through audience realizes they are watching a film and an illustrated space. In that sense, it is seen that pleasure of looking from a hegemonic perspective to the screen is broken. As breaking the wall, Godard provokes to change the spectator while inviting audience in the process of reproduction of meaning6. Thus, with this invitation, a collective structure could be constructed in favor of Marxist understanding in film studies. Along with Jean-Luc Godard, across the world, particularly in Europe, South America and Asia, socialrealist films in the sense of deconstructing illustrated truth are started to be produced. In that sense, counter cinema in Marxist understanding, helps to convey the notions of breaking old narrative style through providing changes of both production and narration to transform spectator. This approach effects to creation of social realist films which mostly are centered upon issues of working class, and also emergence of social realist film makers such as Mike Leigh and Ken Loach in England. With this, awakening of the class consciousness in cinema, after the 1960s, have expanded through the psychoanalytic theories, feminist and queer theories, and also post-structuralist theories in film studies.
Finally, it can be said that Marxist tradition in film studies shapes the theories on ideology of film production. Withthe transformation of classical narrative in cinema, film production is expanded through interrogation of its reality and therefore its political and ideological existence. Representation of social forms is altered that spectator now can be aware of construction of modes of cinematic productions which are shaped through class consciousness in Marxist tradition. Thus, reproduction of hegemonic ideology loses its transparency in narrative and begins to be examined bythe help of social realist films.
Citations
Rushton, R., & Bettinson, G. (2011). What is film theory? an introduction to contemporary debates.Maidenhead: McGraw Hill Open Univ. Press.
Hayward, S. (2006). Hayward (2006: 77-81). In Cinema studies: The key concepts. London: Routledge.
Althusser, Louis (2014). On the Reproduction of Capitalism: Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. G.M.Gosggarian (trans.). London, New York: Verso
Bazin, André (2005). What is Cinema? Volume I. Hugh Gray (Ed. And Trans.). Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
Stam, R. (2017). Film Theory: An Introduction. Somerset: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Wollen, P. (1972). Godard and Counter Cinema: Vent D'Est.