{"id":134,"date":"2014-09-12T15:05:58","date_gmt":"2014-09-12T15:05:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/?page_id=134"},"modified":"2014-09-22T12:12:25","modified_gmt":"2014-09-22T12:12:25","slug":"hoi-lun-law-on-angstfear-adrian-martin-cristina-alvarez-lopez-2014","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/reflections\/reflections-on-av-essays\/hoi-lun-law-on-angstfear-adrian-martin-cristina-alvarez-lopez-2014\/","title":{"rendered":"Hoi Lun Law on ANGST\/FEAR (Adrian Martin &#038; Cristina \u00c1lvarez L\u00f3pez, 2014)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>ANGST\/FEAR, A video essay by Adrian Martin and Cristina \u00c1lvarez L\u00f3pez.<\/strong><br \/>\nFirst published at <em>Transit: Cine y otros desv\u00edos<\/em>, July 4, 2013. Online at: <a href=\"http:\/\/cinentransit.com\/angst-fear\/\" target=\"_blank\">http:\/\/cinentransit.com\/angst-fear\/ <\/a><\/p>\n<p>[Footage: MARTHA (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1974), FEAR (James Foley, 1996)].<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"\/\/player.vimeo.com\/video\/69164651?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0&amp;color=6b1307\" width=\"640\" height=\"351\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p><strong>Written Reflection by <a href=\"http:\/\/dbms.ilrt.bris.ac.uk\/school-of-arts\/people\/hoi-lun-law\/index.html\/\" target=\"_blank\">Hoi Lun Law (University of Bristol)<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>If missing out some details and alternative interpretations of a film is an unavoidable condition of movie viewing, it is an inescapable fact of film criticism. Images exceed, evade and exhaust words. No matter how much the critic labours over her discussion and analysis of a film, she cannot come close to capturing its totality and her whole experience of it. Cinema, as Raymond Durgnat usefully points out, \u2018is more continuously descriptive than words\u2019 (1982: 114). Continuous, descriptive, and continuously descriptive. Film, as it moves forward in time, also mutates and modulates its meanings from moment to moment. This\u00a0is not to say that the medium effectively defies language but rather that film invariably deems words ineffectual and inadequate. This is the reason why writings on cinema are often accompanied by frame enlargements and stills: ideally, the words and the images compliment each other. While words give eloquence and clarity to images; images lend richness and presence to words. The recent emergence of the audiovisual essay in the study of film presses the use of images further and generates experiments with\u00a0the critical potential of evoking and directly engaging the very objects it examines. Images are used to study images; film becomes quotable in its criticism.<\/p>\n<p>\u2018[N]othing\u2019, Nicole Brenez observes, \u2018clarifies an image like another image\u2019 and \u2018nothing analyses a film better than another film\u2019 (2003: 23). This fascinating thought, while\u00a0only recently being tested by the audiovisual essay, is in fact not an alien idea to film criticism. Indeed, comparison and contrast, juxtaposition and judgment are what criticism always does. Critics detour into another film when the one at hand calls for it, warrants it. By weighing one film against another, tracing their exchanges and traffic or delineating their kinship, we can often illuminate and deepen the understanding of both. Pairing up films inevitably draws our attention to the similarities and differences between them. The approach is particularly useful in discussions of remaking and reappropriation in cinema; it studies the stakes of sameness and variation between films \u2013 the creativity and innovation involved in the transfer.<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, putting a film alongside another one does not only allow an enquiry into genealogy and teleology, it could also expose the subconscious of the films \u2013 their muted thoughts that easily go amiss otherwise. Consider \u2018Angst\/ Fear\u2019, an audiovisual essay made by Cristina \u00c1lvarez L\u00f3pez and Adrian Martin[1. Available online at: <a href=\"http:\/\/cinentransit.com\/angst-fear\/#dos\" target=\"_blank\">http:\/\/cinentransit.com\/angst-fear\/#dos<\/a> [accessed 31 May 2014]. [The audiovisual essay is accompanied by a short text written by \u00c1lvarez L\u00f3pez and Martin]. In this piece, they \u2018conjure, through montage, an <em>imaginary scene<\/em>\u2019 out of Rainer Werner Fassbinder\u2019s <em>Martha <\/em>(1974) and James Foley\u2019s <em>Fear<\/em> (1996) (emphasis original, 2013). What triggers the imagination of \u00c1lvarez L\u00f3pez and Martin is the uncanny resemblance between the roller coaster ride scenes in the two films. Both of the films revolve around the painful relationship between a vulnerable girl and a sinister man; both of them consummate and unleash a perverse libidinal energy and reckless drive in a scene in the fairground; and both of them are footnoted by the presence of another couple after the ride. In terms of plot, the two scenes sound identical, inviting comparisons and a study of the lineage of ideas. However, this is not the avenue that \u00c1lvarez L\u00f3pez and Martin\u2019s audiovisual essay pursues. Instead of diving into the deep water of the \u2018hyper-conscious, quotational frenzy of intertextuality\u2019, their essay is interested in the \u2018sifting and transforming, unconscious osmosis\u2019 between the scenes (ibid). There exists a secret and subtle dialogue between <em>Martha<\/em> and <em>Fear<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>\u00c1lvarez L\u00f3pez and Martin\u2019s argument is simple: by juxtaposing <em>Martha<\/em> and Fear, we can unveil a deeper logic underneath both of the films. It is notable that the two fairground scenes, despite their resemblance, actually differ in their premise and context. In the Fassbinder film, the ride is Martha\u2019s (Margit Carstensen) journey into fear, her confrontation with\u00a0the anxiety of falling and falling in love; the corresponding scene in the Foley film, by depicting a sexual encounter between the couple (David and Nicole, played by Mark Wahlberg and Reese Witherspoon), plunges into the intense and pleasurable togetherness of that moment. Fear <em>or<\/em> pleasure. At the surface, the kinship of the two scenes is only superficial. However, a closer look at them discloses otherwise. <em>Fear<\/em>, as it develops, is revealed to be \u2018a generalisation of the \u201ccharming bad boy\u201d syndrome into an exploration of the terror of patriarchy itself\u2019. The sinister undertone of the roller coaster ride, in retrospect, becomes immensely palpable. Martha, ever since her first sight of Helmut (Karlheinz B\u00f6hm) harbours an unspoken desire for the man. The ride, with its thrills and blasts of bodily sensations, is not unlike \u2018a perverse source of pleasure, even ecstasy, for her\u2019 (ibid). Fear <em>and<\/em> pleasure. The two scenes indeed double each other; their meanings deepen when placed together.<\/p>\n<p>The vigour of \u00c1lvarez L\u00f3pez and Martin\u2019s audiovisual essay lies in the way it dramatises the doubling of <em>Martha<\/em> and <em>Fear<\/em>. It crosscuts between the two ride scenes, creating an original piece of montage. We can well imagine how the video could be made differently done \u2013 with images of the scenes literally placed alongside each other as in a split-screen comparison. If this were the case, however, with our attentions busy moving back and forth between the two images, the audience would be\u00a0drawn to detecting the stylistic affinities and disparities amongst the scenes, as if it were\u00a0a game of \u2018spot the differences\u2019: one might wonder why, for instance, <em>Martha<\/em> depicts the couple in two-shots while <em>Fear<\/em> separates the lovers in close-ups? \u00c1lvarez L\u00f3pez and Martin\u2019s approach, rather than merely virtuosic, has critical implications: By fusing the two rides into one, the video essay figuratively \u2018conjures the perfect psychological <em>double bind<\/em> of ecstasy and <em>angst<\/em> combined\u2019. \u2018[T]hese twin, extreme emotions\u2019, the critics conclude, \u2018knot to form a prison, a paralysis\u2019 (emphasis original, ibid). Also important is how the montage mirrors the whirlwind sensations of the rides: the scenes are crisscrossed to form a flurry of images with increasingly breakneck pace and relentless intensity. It is as if the experiences of two girls are indistinguishable, inextricably linked. In this light, <em>Fear<\/em>\u2019s rapturous close-ups, as the \u00c1lvarez L\u00f3pez and Martin piece suggests, are the mental enlargements of Martha and Helmut; and the two-shots in the <em>Martha<\/em>, by the same token, depicts the precarious situation that David and Nicole are in. Angst and desire, prison and paralysis \u2013 these are the keys to interpret <em>Martha<\/em> and <em>Fear<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>\u2018Interpretative criticism has an inherent tendency to schematise\u2019, Robin Wood diagnoses, and scenes that \u2018explore[s] the complex potentialities of&#8230; situation[s]\u2019 are prone to be \u2018coarsened in the process of analysis\u2019 (1967: 86). Indeed, interpretation is about narrowing down the possibilities of a film, subjecting it to a distinct way of seeing; it sometimes makes the film appears neater than it actually is. This is perhaps a particularly acute concern when the critic compares and connects films: so how do we discuss the films in reasonably general and convincing terms without flattening them, effacing their singularities? \u00c1lvarez L\u00f3pez and Martin, by allowing <em>Fear<\/em> and <em>Martha<\/em> the space to speak to and directly engage with each other as images, achieve the exploration\u00a0of \u2018the complex potentialities of situations\u2019 within the scenes, without coarsening and sacrificing their individual texture, tone and mood. The video essay focuses closely on one specific way of approaching the films, yet at the same time opens up an alternative avenue of understanding them.<\/p>\n<p>\u2018Wild horses couldn\u2019t drag me away\u2019 \u2013 \u00c1lvarez L\u00f3pez and Martin reuse the song \u2018Wild Horses\u2019 from <em>Fear<\/em>. Here, the lyrics do not only amply describe the states that the couples of <em>Martha<\/em> and <em>Fear<\/em> are in: their deep and intense involvement in a situation and their determination to stay in it; the lyrics also bespeak a rather disabling mentality that plagues film criticism: How often do we read criticisms that seem to be written with a preconceived idea or framework? How often do we blindly embrace an established or powerful interpretation in our appreciation of film, denying the work its\u00a0say? Indeed, \u00c1lvarez L\u00f3pez and Martin\u2019s video essay, so accomplished in opening up a conversation between the Fassbinder and Foley films, reminds us not to come to films with ideas. We should instead let the films lead and teach us how to view them, not letting their potentialities miss us. \u2018Wild, wild horses, we&#8217;ll ride them some day\u2019, the song ends on a\u00a0note of hopeful aspiration.<\/p>\n<p><strong>WORKS CITED:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Brenez, N. (2003) \u201cMovie Mutations: Letters from (and to) Some Children of 1960\u201d in Jonathan Rosenbaum and Adrian Martin (eds.) <em>Movie Mutations: The Changing Face of World Cinephilia<\/em>, London: BFI, pp.1-34.<\/p>\n<p>Durgnat, R. (1982) \u201cFilm theory: From narrative to description\u201d, <em>Quarterly Review of Film Studies<\/em>, 7:2, pp. 109-129.<\/p>\n<p>Martin, A. and \u00c1lvarez L\u00f3pez, C. (2013) &#8220;ANGST\/FEAR&#8221;, <em>Transit: Cine y otros desv\u00edos<\/em>, July 4. Online at: <a href=\"http:\/\/cinentransit.com\/angst-fear\/\" target=\"_blank\">http:\/\/cinentransit.com\/angst-fear\/ <\/a><strong><br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Wood, R. (1967) <em>Arthur Penn<\/em>, London: Studio Vista.<\/p>\n<p><strong>ALSO SEE:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u00c1lvarez L\u00f3pez, Cristina\u00a0(with\u00a0Adrian Martin), \u2018<a href=\"http:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/frankfurt-papers\/cristina-alvarez-lopez-adrian-martin\/\" target=\"_blank\">The One and the Many: Making Sense of Montage in the Audiovisual Essay\u2019\u00a0[Frankfurt Papers]<\/a>&#8216;<\/li>\n<li>\u00c1lvarez L\u00f3pez, Cristina,\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/reflections\/intransition-1-3\/cristina-alvarez-lopez\/\" target=\"_blank\">\u2018On SMALL GESTURES\u2019\/\u2019From Idea to Concept [Extract]\u2018<\/a>,\u00a0as curated at<a href=\"http:\/\/mediacommons.futureofthebook.org\/intransition\/2014\/09\/14\/idea-concept\" target=\"_blank\">\u00a0<em>[in]Transition<\/em>, 1.3, 2014<\/a><\/li>\n<li>Martin, Adrian,<a href=\"http:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/reflections\/intransition-1-3\/adrian-martin\/\" target=\"_blank\">\u00a0\u2018On\u00a0WHERE I COME FROM, WHERE I\u2019M GOING\u2019,<\/a>\u00a0as curated at\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/mediacommons.futureofthebook.org\/intransition\/2014\/09\/14\/inwardoutward-turn\" target=\"_blank\"><em>[in]Transition<\/em>, 1.3, 2014<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: right;\"><em>Edited by Catherine Grant<\/em><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2>Biographical Note<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Hoi Lun Law<\/strong> is currently a\u00a0research\u00a0student in Film Studies at the University of Bristol, UK. He is one of the co-editors of <a href=\"http:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/\" target=\"_blank\">The Audiovisual Essay<\/a> website.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: right;\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>ANGST\/FEAR, A video essay by Adrian Martin and Cristina \u00c1lvarez L\u00f3pez. First published at Transit: Cine y otros desv\u00edos, July <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/reflections\/reflections-on-av-essays\/hoi-lun-law-on-angstfear-adrian-martin-cristina-alvarez-lopez-2014\/\">Continue Reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Hoi Lun Law on ANGST\/FEAR (Adrian Martin &#038; Cristina \u00c1lvarez L\u00f3pez, 2014)<\/span><span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":132,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"page-fullwidth.php","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-134","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/P4VcpT-2a","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/134","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=134"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/134\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":787,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/134\/revisions\/787"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/132"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}