Beyond Constructing and Capturing: An Aesthetic Analysis of 1968 Film

Adviser: Marco Abel This study revisits conversations surrounding the global moment of 1968 and the forms of radical filmmaking that occurred during that time. Focusing on the Newsreel collective and the Dziga Vertov Group from the United States and France respectively—groups that utilized very distinct filmmaking methodologies and produced disparate aesthetics—the study argues that traditional leftist film critique must be rethought by acknowledging the revolutionary opportunities afforded to filmmakers through aesthetic elements like voiceovers or intentionally manipulated relationships between image and sound of specific shots. Instead of judging radical films within a spectrum of revolutionary efficacy, the reflexivity afforded to the filmmaker by stylistic experimentation should be given greater emphasis when critiquing such films. To achieve this, the study relies on the work of Jacque Rancière to produce a conceptual framework capable of reconciling aesthetics and politics, which remains a binary that traditionally has been kept separate by the left. This framework highlights the importance of the sensible—literally what can be heard and seen—for a political moment as defined by Rancière, and further justifies this kind of analysis for the critic of radical films as a result. About 45 minutes into Olivier Assayas' Après mai (Something in the Air, 2012), which revisits the heady days of political activism in early 1970s France in the aftermath of the events of May 1968, a crucial scene occurs in which a collection of revolutionaries gather to watch a film about the struggles of communities in Laos. The film is educational in purpose and to this end heavily relies on a voiceover to describe how the struggle of the oppressed people of Laos is currently unfolding. Following a round of applause from the audience, the directors are invited on stage to answer questions. After a few friendly questions that allow the two directors to explain their approach to filmmaking, one audience member challenges them and their project: ―Your films adopt a classical style, like that of the bourgeoisie. Shouldn't revolutionary cinema employ revolutionary syntax?‖ One director replies that ―Such a style would be a shock for the proletariat. Our role is to enlighten them.‖ In this brief scene, Assayas deftly reminds his contemporary audience of one of the most crucial debates permeating the political left at the time: a debate about the role that culture can and should play in the context of revolutionary struggle. More specifically, he highlights the importance of aesthetics in …