|
|
CROSS-ART
FORMS: REBECCA HORN'S FILMS |
|
|
Pound
said poetry should not drift too far from music. In his rarely heard opera,
VILLON (a BBC radio 70's recording of which you can hear in the National
Sound Archive of the British Library) Pound shows what he means. Any decent
stab at the score shows a poet really interacting with music, his settings
for Villon (already a very voiced, very expressive poet) shining a light on
the French poet's work, and doing no violence to its cadences - most of the
subtleties coming through. By contrast, many settings of poems magnify an
aspect (amplification, if you'll excuse the pun, and lyrics set to music,
always going together) of the text but shout or mumble through the bits of
the poem the composer had no use for. Still, criticism sweeps through a poem
in the same way, and we can still feel grateful for it. One
can play a game about poets who attend to music. The poet cris cheek once
said to me that he could guess a poet's record collection, what she or he had
on when writing, from the writing. I am leaving aside the question of how
poets emulate technical effects from music or the compositional whole of a
piece they like. Because if this happens, it most often is done in a slippery
way: it's the music you don't think you're emulating that comes through.
Bunting said he tried young to emulate Beethoven - and his one small
newspaper article on Beethoven from the twenties is wonderful - but switched,
to Scarlatti. Many have taken him at his word. In my mind, Bunting's poetry
is all Beethoven, if bad Beethoven. What
about texts to fit around music, or have music in them? We are, of course,
entering the season of the truly dreadful Poetry at the Proms. Few of the
poems commissioned, usually for the interval of a broadcast Prom, are ever
commissioned to fit with the music being played. Few come alive because of
the way the music up to the interval has trained and tuned the ear. Few make
inspired guesses at the emotional heart of the music. You can tell
Kierkkegard loved Mozart's Don Juan before he tells you, loved it in detail.
Few Prom poets can join George Bernard Shaw or E.M. Forster in pleading
weakness of detail mitigated by strength of basic hunch, when talking about
music. The commissioned poets seem not to be able to concentrate on a piece
of music more than 5 mins long, and can't write sustained poems of any length
either. Their damp squibs are short but not brief: they lack the concision of
a piano piece or a lieder. So how
is one to learn how to keep one's artform from drifting too far from music?
These commissioned poets seem unable to take on board strategies of word
fragmentation and big diction shifts (which is how avant-gardist make the
word into a chord, listening for its two or three constituent notes and how they
pick up or clash with constituent notes in either words; and how they make
Stravinskian shifts of time signature and instrument colour) but they might
find it less in-your-face to study, say, a visual artist tuned to music.
Music for an artist in another medium disrupts the will-to-habit and makes a
more broken medium, more fragile and dependent (on music and musical
sensitivity). When one opens to music, one cannot go back to music unchanged.
But I can say this to a fellow poet and leave them thoroughly unchanged. If
they see music impact on a non-musical medium that is not poetry, they might
be a little altered, subtly, sweetly. Who
will do this? The visual artist
Rebecca Horn is close to music, and is currently being given a retrospective
at the Hayward Gallery in London. There are passages in each of her three
(rare) films devoted to echoingly recorded musical performance, usually a
musician rehearsing, trying out a phrase from different angles. People play
music in her films, not as a window on a character (think of Jane Campion's
The Piano, where in a sense it might as well be silence, dialogue free
stares, and a soundtrack), but to show the concentration, people devoted to
what they do - the factor experienced music-goers love in musicians. Horn similarly
features dancers at work, process artists finding their process, and people
moving objects and dressing for maximum beauty. But as part of a narrative,
not as a documentary showing professionalism, work ethic, "how it's
done" etc. What
then is her approach to writers, to poets? Let's look at her dialogue
writing, first. In LA FERDINANDA, someone recites medieval poetry at a
wedding, and it exists as a sort of aria in the whole - the whole is
otherwise made of up of banal speech, with a nice Cagean ear for sculpting
flatness that she only achieves in this film, in German; the other films are
both in English. There is often
a voiceover, or a voiceover in all but name, which has about it something of
the "cool speak" common to visual artists, a little deadpan but
full of colour. In DER EINTANZER (dialogue all in English) there is a good
ear for British English and New York English as the same Mary
Steenburgen-like twin sister will switch from being unshockable and
wit-matching with the New Yorker, English rose and formal with the blind
Brit. |
|
|
The
debt to poets is clearer in her overall dramaturgy. She has often said how
she likes Roussel, and the Oulipo writer Jacques Roubaud has written a
sequence of poems about her, NUMS. She then excerpted NUMS, and projected
isolated lines around walls in her piece LIGHT IMPRISONED IN THE BELLY OF A
WHALE. The respect for poets, at least in those around her, doesn't stretch
to including the full Roubaud text
(otherwise very fugitive) in the book of LIGHT IMPRISONED IN THE BELLY OF A WHALE, which otherwise
has a CD of music to go with it (Roubaud's text would fit on a tenth of a
floppy). The Hayward is holding a reading from some pre-fifties French
writers, not Roussel as far as I know, the French household names, who are
read in translation in Britain and still gather around themselves an
oh-so-daring readership who will feel "out there" with Rebecca at
this reading. In practice, they are the canon of the beginner for anyone
French, the basics. The
hunch I had when I heard about the films she made incorporating her trademark
art gadgets (jumping tables, peacockless fanning feathers etc) is the films
would be very Oulipo and Roussel, and I was right. Horn won't release these
films on video or DVD now, so it's a treat to see them, shown twice this week
at the NFT. Think not so much of Perec avoiding writing with the letter E,
but say the writing of palindromes that then stand in a narrative, or number
games, or the way Roussel would make a sentence A echo itself into a
homophonic sentence B with another meaning, and then put sentence A at the
top of the page, B at the bottom, and write a story to link them. Horn
emulates this by finding a narrative in which to embed her objects that also
helps unpack the object. In a gallery, for example, one simply expects wacky
materials. Put one of her opening feather fans next to a real bird, and it
feels more vulnerable, more alchemical. Her attention is also to number games
of sorts with a ruthlessly kept-to rhythm of cuts, short scenes of what feels
like a consistent short length, intercutting between characters. One thinks
of Peter Greenaway's book, GOLD, which keeps a finer neatness of keeping all
its many episodes short than the timings in his films have. Horn eschews Greenaway's
compositional "old master" eye. There are often ugly objects in the
background in some of her scenes - in this, she feels more like a documentary
or process video artist, the frame itself is not artful (when Sven Nykvist is
cinematographer for BUSTER'S BEDROOM, it's all too artful and sheeny, like a
metamorphosed more daring late Woody Allen film) just the objects and the performance art required of the
actors. (Again, in BUSTER"S BEDROOM, there is a conceit to emulate
silent movie acting, but it perhaps is not woven into a sustained whole, as
artfilm, as we have come to know it.) Her
objects are made to fit, and the narrative arises from trying to make them
fit. Film, and film that is not shown much, like a performance art piece,
stands in the memory as you wander round looking at the objects in a spare
clear gallery. The objects are lovely, with their tense slow crouching and
their sudden pouncing, their awkward gambolling. They are concept art which
you keep with you as a memory, that you could maybe commission a replica of,
what would be nice. They are not concept art as advertising, the quick hit
debasement it has become. The films are valuable as co-text, as model for
making a verbal artform that embeds a word-object into a narrative (say a concrete
poem object inside a narrative), and in the case of DER EINTANZER, smooth and
expressive film art, if slightly creepy. Not as creepy as David Lynch, from
whom one expects little emotionally, but creepy given one's emotional
response to Horn as an artist. Horn does a lot of over-identifying with the
disabled - with those in wheelchairs, and the blind - and with twins, that
sometimes reminds me of early Star Trek. Yet the multi-layeredness of her
work, the way that layers interact, compensates. One feels a child's
curiousity, if verging on slight self-pity, in these films, that falls away -
that comes into equilibrium - when one thinks solely of the objects. I find a
candour in this, where perhaps there could be a boldness too: yes, at least
there are disabled people in her films, but something more beckons than she's
doing, as a film-maker. One admires her very light and easy touch with
including gay characters, where they are not so much having to bear the
burden of being the Other for sensitivity, for trouble. Still, the films of
an art genius, troubled by music, troubling film convention, are showing for
the first time in a decade, to a half-empty house. Therefore, go see. © Ira Lightman 2005 |