Guy Debord’s La société du spectacle conjoins powerful images with voiceover reading from his own book. Some of these “autonomous” images, either photographic or filmed, are familiar: the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald; a moon walk. Others are generic—familiar as a type of image: aerial bombing; Castro giving a speech. “All that was directly lived has moved away,” we are told, “into a representation.” This “Spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among persons, mediated by images.” In this brilliant documentary’s first coup, an overhead image of a massive crowd expresses simultaneously this “social relation” and the mediation, draining the implication of proletarian power almost as quickly as positing it. Debord’s book preceded the May 1968 revolt, which his own group of “Situationists” helped foment, but the film, coming after, all the more locates the people in a state of disadvantage.
Production and consumption determine images. The Spectacle is “the affirmation of appearance,” “the negation of life.” A scene of factory labor yields to a militaristic shot—missiles, poised for discharge from a vessel—and we hear about the economy’s role in forcing workers’ “total submission”; “[the Spectacle] is the faithful reflection of the production of things, and the unfaithful objectification of the [workers],” whose alienation from the world reflects their alienation from work that accumulates capital—in “such abundance” that it becomes an image—for others.
Power is at the ancient root of the Spectacle. A parliamentary image yields to police in riot gear violently confronting a street demonstration; “[The Spectacle] is the diplomatic representation of hierarchical society to itself, where every other form of speech is banned.”
By the Spectacle, “one part of the world represents itself as superior to the rest of the world.”
THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE (Guy Debord, 1973)
By grunesGuy Debord’s La société du spectacle conjoins powerful images with voiceover reading from his own book. Some of these “autonomous” images, either photographic or filmed, are familiar: the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald; a moon walk. Others are generic—familiar as a type of image: aerial bombing; Castro giving a speech. “All that was directly lived has moved away,” we are told, “into a representation.” This “Spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among persons, mediated by images.” In this brilliant documentary’s first coup, an overhead image of a massive crowd expresses simultaneously this “social relation” and the mediation, draining the implication of proletarian power almost as quickly as positing it. Debord’s book preceded the May 1968 revolt, which his own group of “Situationists” helped foment, but the film, coming after, all the more locates the people in a state of disadvantage.
Production and consumption determine images. The Spectacle is “the affirmation of appearance,” “the negation of life.” A scene of factory labor yields to a militaristic shot—missiles, poised for discharge from a vessel—and we hear about the economy’s role in forcing workers’ “total submission”; “[the Spectacle] is the faithful reflection of the production of things, and the unfaithful objectification of the [workers],” whose alienation from the world reflects their alienation from work that accumulates capital—in “such abundance” that it becomes an image—for others.
Power is at the ancient root of the Spectacle. A parliamentary image yields to police in riot gear violently confronting a street demonstration; “[The Spectacle] is the diplomatic representation of hierarchical society to itself, where every other form of speech is banned.”
By the Spectacle, “one part of the world represents itself as superior to the rest of the world.”
This entry was posted on May 24, 2007 at 7:11 am and is filed under Formal Capsule Film Comments. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.