Is Christian Metz correct in his essay, “Story/Discourse: Notes on Two Kinds of Voyeurism" when he says that a film is successful when “abolishes all traces of the subject of enunciation"? In films where the discourse is obviously shown such as History and Memory the class seems to agree that this cinematic form (bringing discourse to the forefront) actually makes the story and meaning of the film more dynamic. This is a situation where the discourse makes the story amazing. It aids in the telling of the story As we discussed in our section, the constant switching from viewing photos, to propaganda videos being made, to acted out scenes, and then to actual videos from the time create a great compilation of film strategies to poignantly convey Rea Tajiri’s recollection of the Japanese Americans’ experience during World War II.
So now considering films in which the discourse is subtle, do we still think that
the perception of the discourse, in these instances, spoils the viewing experience? Some believe it does, others disagree. Take Belle for example and her experience with the film Hero. She describes how the production devices that,created the action-packed scenes of Hero, actually seems to counter the idea of spectators being sutured into the Film. She says “Jet Li (Nameless) and Tony Leung (Broken Sword) share an epic battle while practically defying gravity as they fly over the water. Not only that, but the water itself serves as a balancing board for them to regain their battling composure. It's stunning! Yet as soon as the spectator starts questioning how the shot was made the illusion of the story is gone and discourse comes to the forefront.” This is very true. But seeing as though we are now critical film viewers, we must ask ourselves…is this focus on discourse really such a bad thing? I do not believe so.
If anything we are now aware of the intricate processes that go into the production and enunciation of cinematic stories. After we view a film we can see it as more than just “good” or “bad” we can say more than “I liked it” or “It sucked”. Take how Tyler feels about the film Triumph of the Will for example. Though she and the rest of the class agree that the film was a bit boring, she notes that "[t]he film is a brilliant example of propaganda in cinema, and its execution is nearly flawless in its attempts at persuasion." Tyler refers to the exorbitant amount of shots with Hitler shot from low angles to convey his amazing power, and the wide shots of crowds of thousands of soldiers marching in unison. She and many students of cinema appreciate films more now due to the simple fact that we can notice discourse—editing techniques, lighting, mise-en-scene, and countless other cinematic tools. It is important that spectators not only see a divide between story and discourse but rather, understand the undeniable reliance of the two on each other to make films great. The better we realize what is going on in a film, the more we appreciate the film for what it is, says, and does.
