Amid Catch Phrases – Catch Images’ fascinating discussion Harun Farocki touches on a huge function of cinema, especially prevalent in today’s unavoidable exposure to the video image. He posits that perhaps film, specifically the essay film, functions to bring information to those who would never interact with the information in another format—addressing both individuals who wouldn’t read an article and attend a lecture and information which cannot be displayed otherwise. Although not the focus, the film perfectly articulates this perspective through its form—a conversation of the co-function of newspaper images and their surrounding text between an essay filmmaker and a philosopher (Vilém Flusser). Such a moment, if only existing in time or a written form would only be experienced by a select few intentionally seeking it out. However Farocki’s drive to record the moment on film allowed me, and a full cinema of others, to experience the film 20 years on without direct intention. As such Farocki has proved his point, film has brought ideas and information to us who wouldn’t have encountered it in another format. But, of course, this argument is contrived and could easily be made about any medium of preservation, from text to audio recordings. How then is Farocki’s argument specificity aimed at film or video? And, furthermore, how can the 21st century’s relative drowning in film/video-based content illuminate this further?
I believe Farocki’s argument is primarily one of effort. Film is one of the most giving mediums, it provides us with sight, sound and concepts that flow towards us provided we stay awake and aware. We viewers need exert no energy to progress to the next frame, input colour, create character, or, often, even think. The film presents us with a finalised stream of sound and image that presents some information; from a simple form and colour to more complex story and emotional journeys to information, ideas, and options for everyday living (i.e. advertising). Of course, the list of these possibilities extends beyond the horizon. Thus as we sit and absorb this content we are able to attend or look away at will, but we need to exert little beyond simply viewing and processing. One can most easily feel this difference comparing the experience of reading a book, listening to it read and watching it recreated on film. Not only is the filmic version easier to digest, but it is also often heavily reduced resulting in even less time being committed to the act. Farocki’s conversation with Flusser would undoubtedly require a resource of committed energy to read, let alone understand, while the 13 minute film, complete with perfect articulation, clear character and visual reference is easily viewed. Thus, although Farocki’s argument holds strong another question boils to the surface—is film easier, or even as easy, to fully understand?
Of course this depends heavily on the material. A film of a heron swaying its head to achieve parallax in order to fish effectively is far easier to understand in film rather than a written form (remember here film is AUDIO-visual often containing explanatory/complementary audio tracks, like the above example described from Planet Earth). Perplexingly, Farocki and Flusser’s conversation is perhaps more difficult to understand in film, especially when viewed in a cinema without the ability to re-view sections of the film which contain complex self-coined terminology and academic-like reference. As this medium seems less suited to this content, we must rethink the purpose of the proposed argument. We must simplify the argument from film provides its viewers the opportunity to more effortlessly access information from another, more complicated, medium to a more straight forward; film provides more information to more people—with the obvious caveat that this more does not correlate with correct, coherent or comprehensive.
Considering this in relation to our everyday exposure to film/video, existing mainly online, displays Farocki’s true profundity. For example, earlier this week as I researched Apple’s new macOS I was met with two clear options; read an article of the changes or have them presented to me effortlessly in a video. I instinctively clicked the 3-minute video, but the article proved more expansive. Such a piece of simplified information, given a clear time-frame and an easy click-bait title “7 major macOS Catalina changes” puts our minds at ease through obvious principles; we know what we’ll get, we know how long it’ll take and, as it’s video, we know we’ll have to input very little effort to receive the information. And, as the bait wanted, it quickly received my click. But will it still receive my click next time, given the relative absence of all the information? Probably. It, of course, all depends on the source and our trust of it—branching towards well-trodden topics of fake news and misinformation. But, similar to film’s baseline requirement for less attention, one could easily argue fake-news is often due to (and perhaps caused by) a lack of time committed by the spectator to think on and explore an issue themselves—resulting in the creators of such content paring down the depth until it is easily transmittable, yet completely misleading, in a single headline. And, at that stage, how many will put in the effort to explore deeper?
But, inevitably driven by a competition-based capitalist ideology, these occurrences probably create each other. Film is easier to consume, and provides information quickly, so newspapers reduce their article sizes to compete for the relative lack of attention, thus videos become shorter and more concise to remain the easiest medium to gain the information. But as we approach this medium self-destruction, Farocki’s argument has almost fallen apart as the information which was previously being provided has been eclipsed by the need for attention—the need to sell. Here perhaps the principal fragment of this analysis comes to the fore, all crafted film/video is accompanied by a silent mediator peddling their ideology under the guise of reality. And, as all this film remains effortlessly consumable the medium quickly becomes the most dangerous battleground for ideology. What is more dangerous than a documentary image, which wholly claims truth, being forged under a specific ideology? But remember, that is a description of ALL cinema—not just an intentionally well-crafted lie.
Emerging back to the surface, where has this discussion taken us? Farocki’s argument that film provides information to an audience who wouldn’t usually encounter it holds somewhat true. It allows simpler, more effortless, access to all sorts of information—artistic, profound, real, ideological, advertising. But such simple access has come at the expense of a true depth and comprehension. Yet, what seems to be a conclusion scathing the medium of film as a shallow explanation of things that are deeper, is not at all the case. Film/video has been exploited this way and, of course, will remain to be. Yet Farocki, and his filmography, have shown a different meaning for his statement that pushes in the opposite direction. Film can, just as easily as it can mislead, can reveal an alternative viewpoint. Can just as easily reveal the lie, the ideology, the danger, of another piece of film—becoming a question of who, or what, we as a cine-savvy viewer can believe. Thus it’s a medium which suffers from itself, and solves its own problems. Its consumability helps to bridge gaps between the mainstream and art spaces, between advertising and avant-garde and, most importantly, between truth and lie. But then what stops us from viewing these all the same, after all they all require the same singular pre-requisite from the viewer—access to their eyes and ears. Perhaps it is simply our preconceptions of the medium. A want for story, a want for clarity and a want for something familiar. Farocki testified to film’s ability to provide this wealth of different information to a wider audience, we would learn a lot by similarly opening ourselves up to all the medium has to offer.
…Come to think of it perhaps I should have made this into a video, maybe it would be more accessible and would reach more people…
~Leo
[ Farocki’s argument can be found in his film Catch Phrases – Catch Images. A Conversation with Vilém Flusser (1998) ]