In this way, the opening shot of The Man From London recalls the opening to Carlos Reygadas’s Silent Light. But while Reygadas
shows us the birth of the universe (as my friend Victor Morton wonderfully
describes here) presented to the camera by God, in Tarr’s film, the camera
is God, creating the reality in which this drama will play out. We begin with
only water, and as the camera pans up, we see the enormous boat that will
become a crucial location to the narrative. As the camera moves upwards, it
suddenly becomes shadowed in black at moments. We soon realize that there is not
just the water and the boat but now there is an existence of another
materiality—something blocking our ability to see, and so we are not just at
sea with the boat. Finally we have to appearance of total black and then feet. A human body is now part of this
reality, a room in which we still don’t understand where and how it exists, and
yet it is now part of this world. The camera continues upwards and we get up to the window of
this perch, and thus we can now see the top of the ship where two men are
meeting. Did this exist before it entered the shot?
The metaphysical qualities of Tarr’s cinema, the slow camera
panning from composition to composition, suggest that nothing is known in the physical world until the camera points to it and capture it. It is as if Tarr was slowly setting up the pieces for
a game of chess (an image that factors in later). So as the camera then pans
right, slowly observing through windows, you feel that with each pass to a new
window, the elements come into existence: first a bridge, and then a
cobble-stone land, and finally a train. These
are now here and exist. The camera then moves back, and allows the
observer—the man who views and thus
creates—to have a face. He was a body before; now he is a person. We follow
his view, and as he leads us to the other side, suddenly we are confronted with
land on the other side, a new part of this reality that exists almost
independently of the train on the other side. Watch how the camera then treats
the essential action—we watch as a man moves to the edge of the port, and then
the camera turns to show a man now on the boat, holding a suitcase. That
suitcase and man could not exist without the movement of the camera, and thus
by the camera pointing us to him, he
now exists and allows the suitcase to be thrown. Finally, Tarr gives us the
full view via a long final pan—the mystery port, the boat, the train station.
The train’s engine starts, but it can only move until the camera points the way
forward, creating the railway for it to travel. The shot is complete—we now
have a reality for this narrative to take place in.
This is just one of many moments that feels so crucial in The Man From London, which I feel is not
like what we see in Tarr’s more canonical works. When Tarr has a shot of a
quiet city street, he points the camera up and suddenly we hear a baby crying,
as the movement of the camera had led to its birth. Tarr’s shots begin with the
intimate, and then he slowly establishes space and reality itself as the shot
continues on. We might here a sound off screen, but we have no idea what exists
until Tarr manifests it to the spectator, sometimes comical (a playful dance of
a ball and chair) revealing (a certain character listening in on a private
conversation). It’s also what ties Tarr so directly to Miklós Jancsó, as his
shots also construct a reality that feels like a chess game where you can’t see
the move until it happens. No wonder why we never see the death near the end of
The Man From London, the body literally
locked away beyond the camera’s grasp. Tarr’s films are said to exist in a
godless universe, but the camera itself is our God.
No comments:
Post a Comment