In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Roland Barthes’s Cold-War Cinema
  • Philip Watts (bio)

Roland Barthes's essays are now part of the history of film studies, their force having pulled back with the tide of theory. Barthes's proclaimed "resistance to cinema" (Roland Barthes, 54), however, the choice he made near of the end of his life to write about photography "in opposition to Cinema" (Camera Lucida, 3), the pleasure he felt upon leaving a movie theatre, his suspicion toward what he called cinema's "imperialism,"1 leave the impression of a vertiginous ambivalence toward the movies at the heart of a work that not so long ago was a fundamental reference for film scholars. This suspicion toward the moving image may be attributed to Barthes's melancholy penchant for the stillness and silence that inspired his meditative essays, or perhaps to a European literary scholar's mistrust of an art form that he saw primarily as a commodity and a popular spectacle. Barthes's ambivalence may also have been tactical, however. If we follow Barthes's writing on films, from the early Mythologies to his last essay on Antonioni, we find that Barthes's resistance to cinema may have also been an attempt to sketch out a resistance to what he saw as another sort of imperialism, that of the two rival and dominant Cold-War powers. Barthes's essays on film may very well have been determined not just by a desire to escape what in his 1975 essay "En sortant du cinéma" he labeled the "ideological" (258), but also and more precisely by an attempt to question through writing an opposition that structured the film field after 1945, and which Barthes in his Mythologies, called "la grande contestation URSS-USA" (42). 2

We tend to forget today the extent to which Barthes's Mythologies, these essays by a Marxist flâneur on the streets of Cold-War Paris, describe his encounters with cinema. Barthes wrote about ad campaigns, a photography exposition, an article in Paris-Match, the steak he might have been served for lunch, but also about Charlie Chaplin, film noir tough guys, Chabrol's Le Beau Serge, Sacha Guitry, Greta Garbo, the invention of Cinemascope, and two films starring Marlon Brando, Elia Kazan's On the Waterfront and Joseph Mankiewicz's Julius Caesar. Running throughout these encounters with everyday culture is a 1950s left-wing sensibility that attempts to demystify the norms of petit bourgeois ideology, and [End Page 17] constantly refers back to commonplaces of leftist politics such as the representation of workers, the rhetoric of right-wing movements in France, decolonization, the Korean War, American acculturation of Europe and Cold-ar rivalries. As a case in point, "The Romans in Films" is one of the wittiest essays of the collection in its light-hearted attempts to make a Hollywood tragedy unfamiliar to French audiences. It begins this way: "In Mankiewicz's Julius Caesar, all the characters are wearing fringes. Some have them curly, some straggly, some tufted, some oily, all have them well combed, and the bald are not admitted, although there are plenty to be found in roman history" (26). Under Barthes's lingering gaze, Mankiewicz's film suddenly becomes a movie about hair, more precisely about "fringes." Barthes goes on to add that the "king-pin of the film" (26) is neither the scriptwriter nor the director but the hairdresser. Hair, in Julius Caesar, tells us all we need to know about the rules of verisimilitude governing Hollywood movies. It is both that which makes a Hollywood movie seem real, and the moment when the verisimilitude breaks down and "reveals a degraded spectacle, which is equally afraid of simple reality and of total artifice" (28). Cinema, or rather Hollywood cinema, is the medium in which "bourgeois folklore"3 asserts itself, a folklore that turns out to be the antithesis of two aesthetic models Barthes cites as ideals: the abstract "algebra" of Chinese theatre, and the "simple reality" of the theatre of Stanislavsky.4

When he published his essay on Julius Caesar, Barthes was regularly writing theatre reviews and actively promoting a Brechtian theatrical aesthetic, and the opposition he establishes may have been a way...

pdf

Share