I wasn’t expecting this video to turn into a cinematic experience. First of all it’s fascinating as a recording of a process, with all the ensuing preparations, accidents, and recalibrations. Secondly, it works as an implicit view on cinema, where what one chooses to shoot and in what way is a testament in this regard.

One of the things that caught my attention is the static shot which lasts for almost a third of the video: I found myself wondering why in the world would someone associate this kind of shot with observational realism and realizing there is nothing natural about it, in the sense that if I were a member of the audience, my gaze would certainly not remain fixed – I would look around and maybe even move. So then there’s the question: why did the filmmaker choose this approach here? Is it by any means an attempt to replicate human perception? Is it in any way trying to make the audience feel as if they were there?

Speaking of naturalness, Godard has supposedly said that zooming is not cinematic because the eye doesn’t zoom. (Zooming feels off to me as well, but for different reasons. As for Godard’s affirmation, this is only hearsay – I haven’t yet found proof for it, but I mentioned it because of its relevance in this context.)

Then again, is cinema supposed to follow or mimic human perception? Is the eye of the camera (the cinema eye) supposed to work as a substitute-translator for the human eye?

Even with such-called observational cinema (which I hold in high esteem), films are not a mere ‘transparent’ capturing of reality. Even when the aim is to help or teach one how to see (and this is one of the missions of cinema as far as I’m concerned), cinema is something else and it is something else in a very particular way, which Godard expresses astutely: “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘢 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘮𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦: 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘢 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦. 𝘜𝘯𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘢 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘪𝘵 […] 𝘓𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵; 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘢 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵.”

While it’s not a mere replication of human perception, this video does speak of how the man behind the camera conceptualizes experience and how he conceptualizes experience through cinema specifically – this amounts to the implicit view on cinema I brought up in the beginning (there’s all the more reason for such a claim since the description of the video says that it is ‘filmed and edited in classic Agadez wedding style by local videographer Lezy Production’ – we are thus dealing with an already more or less established system of representation.)

I will note in passing that the term ‘cinema eye’ is itself problematic because it makes reference to a means of perception which is essentially human/animal/biological. It is thus relevant to point out that its origins, namely Dziga’s Vertov’s kino-glaz, have little to do with a ‘transparent’ capturing of reality or a substitution of human perception:

“𝘞𝘦 [𝘑𝘦𝘢𝘯-𝘗𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘑𝘦𝘢𝘯-𝘓𝘶𝘤 𝘎𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥] 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘦. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘋𝘻𝘪𝘨𝘢 𝘝𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘰𝘷 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘴𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘰𝘭𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘬 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘢-𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘝𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘰𝘷, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴 ‘𝘒𝘪𝘯𝘰 𝘗𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘥𝘢.’ ‘𝘗𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘥𝘢’ 𝘪𝘯 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 ‘𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩,’ 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘰𝘭𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘬 𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘝𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘰𝘷 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘺 ‘𝘒𝘪𝘯𝘰 𝘗𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘥𝘢’ 𝘸𝘢𝘴 ‘𝘒𝘪𝘯𝘰 𝘉.’ – ‘𝘉’ 𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯 ‘𝘉𝘰𝘭𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘬.’ 𝘝𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘰𝘷 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘢 𝘕𝘪𝘹𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘦𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘯 𝘛𝘝.” (Jean-Pierre Gorin)

Vertov’s reality was not phenomenal reality, or transcendental reality – it was social reality or, to put it more accurately, reality viewed through an ideology, an ideologically constructed reality, which is far from what observational cinema, for instance, deals with.

This was only to clarify the common misconception surrounding the term – I am not, however, trying to suggest that the something-else-ness of cinema is based in ideology and I have mixed feelings about the films of Vertov (along with Eisenstein and Pudovkin for that matter.) The way I see it, this specificity has much to do with Badiou’s concept of the impurity of cinema, which I keep referencing enthusiastically.