Film analysis has finally become an art without a future. The fact is that it has never been, in itself, anything more than an illusory object. That is why, paradoxically, it could appear to be a particular activity endowed with a sort of intransitivity. As it happened, it laid claim to this quality without worrying about the confusions and false divisions that would result from it. At the other end of the chain, this tendency was confirmed by the accumulated bibliographies: useful, but ambiguous, they helped make film analysis a separate theoretical genre, with no justification other than the false sense of plenitude that can derive from the act of analysis itself. There are two reasons for this misleading effect of analysis: the nature of the cinematic signifier, which effectively distinguishes film analysis from all other enterprises of the same type; and the coincidence of concern (which was self-evident) between a new interest in films and the general movement in many zones or research that crystallized for a time around the idea of text. Right away, because these two reasons converged with one another, film analysis got to the bodily core of its text. But this seductive body is an elusive body: it cannot really be quoted nor grasped. It is polysemous as well, in an excessive way, and its matter, moulded by iconicity and analogy, pushes language into check. This irreducibility of the filmic substance, which fascinates and stimulates (as do all such elusive objects), serves to limit analysis: the readings of films have been unable to produce the equivalence brought out in readings of Les Chats or in S/Z.1 This does not simply result from the analysts' lack of genius, but primarily from the exceptional resistance put up by the analytic material.2 This resistance has too often led film analysis to take refuge in its own domain, and thereby to add to the illusions and inevitable developments that are proper to the accumulation and the organization of knowledge a special fascination for the circle within which film analysis, since its beginnings, has not been able to avoid turning. As a result of this it still can happen that film analysis will mistake itself for something it is not. In truth there are no longer, or should no longer be, any analyses of films. There are just gestures. Free gestures, made possible now because one day a new intellectual practice that had to be called film analysis allowed (then at the cost of great difficulty) for the stopping of films. And for looking at them with a new and, as it were, cleansed eye. An eye at last freely fascinated. These gestures seem to me, today, to be four in number. First there is this unsurpassable gesture: fixation on the image, the freeze frame. We can never say adequately to what extent it remains the magic gesture par excellence. A paradox: the video recorder, the ideal instrument for analysis, is also what has killed it. Via an excessive generalization, a passage to the infi-
Read full abstract