JAMES BATCHO ’ T E R R E N C E M A L I C K S U N S E E I N G C I N E M A MEMORY, TIME AND AUDIBILITY Terrence Malick’s Unseeing Cinema James Batcho Terrence Malick’s Unseeing Cinema Memory, Time and Audibility James Batcho United International College Zhuhai Shi, China ISBN 978-3-319-76420-7 ISBN 978-3-319-76421-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76421-4 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018936609 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover credit: Samara Doole via Unsplash Printed on acid-free paper This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer International Publishing AG part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland For my father, David John Batcho (1935–2017) P reface This book is an attempt to create a work of original philosophy. It is not a book on film theory. As a work of philosophy, it does not aim to summa- rize or advance contemporary trends of scholarship but, rather, to invent new concepts. Terrence Malick’s films provide the experiential lines of flight and Gilles Deleuze, in particular, provides a conceptual language. Through their work I wish to offer a way of thinking of cinema not on visual or textual terms—e.g., receptive, cognitive, psychoanalytical, or semiological—but through what I name “unseeing.” From this approach, cinema—Malick’s in particular—is not observed from the distance of screen to viewer, rendering it for analysis as a text, work of art, or mode of spectatorship. Exploring cinema from the standpoint of unseeing requires one to enter the life that unfolds, to treat cinema as a real experience for those who live its reality. This is the philosophical work I am attempting through my engagement with Malick and Deleuze. I believe that philosophy, at least in the post-Nietzsche European tradi- tion, is as much a reflection of a writer as of his topic. Therefore, while this book is a philosophical work about cinema, it is also personal. It was writ- ten during a time when I witnessed my father succumb to the anguish of Alzheimer’s disease. In January 2017 he died of a heart attack before the effects of the disease could completely incapacitate him. What I witnessed was the slow, incalculable process. I remember several times sitting with him late at night when he couldn’t sleep, haunted by dreams as vivid as waking life. I listened to him recount memories that overlapped in illogi- cal recreations. These late-night tales would always end the same, in tear- ful pleas to “go home,” wherever that was. These nightly gatherings came vii viii PREFACE in moments of quiet and stillness. During the day was another gathering, a demand to know and a failure to understand what was slipping away. This, I imagine, is a familiar story to family members who have lived it and who themselves have felt powerless to come to terms, let alone to help make amends for the darkness that accompanies it. I have written nothing about this beyond this paragraph. But I mention it because it is here throughout this work, unstated within the statements. Memory, reborn in recollection, becomes an act of imagination and creation, a striving to make what is continually in a process of unaccountable loss. As this book moves through Malick’s cinema, these aspects of memory and imagina- tion are expressed as an audible gathering in the moment that opens to the newness of time. This account culminates with The Tree of Life, a work that reforms Malick’s characters through such gatherings. Love, redemp- tion, and forgiveness are not the words spoken but, instead, the move- ment itself—a process, another listening, a new expression being made. This is cinema’s power, which Malick expresses in beatitude, a Spinozan beatitude. Another personal reflection I wish to offer is that I met Malick when he came to teach a seminar at my university, an indirect result of the research I was doing on him at the time as a PhD student. During the time of my dissertation defense, I attended his lectures and spoke with him briefly outside of class. I found him to be anything but the recluse I had read so much about. Instead, he was in person warm, kind, and open, even enthusiastic. One might think I would take such an opportunity to ask him questions pertinent to my research, but I resisted, less out of reverence and more because I did not want to know whether he read Deleuze or what he had to say about his use of sound. (I told him briefly about my research and I believe his response was a simple, Yes, sound is important.) I wanted his films to express themselves to and for me, with- out the burden of explanations about his artistic and philosophical inten- tions. It became clear during my time with him that he felt the same. Whenever students tried through their questions to draw him into recol- lections about technique, casting, or life on the set, his response was always a polite variation of I don’t remember; it was a long time ago. He seemed uninterested in interpreting his own work, which to me was for the best. Instead, he took a Socratic approach to class time, politely shift- ing any probing questions back onto what the students felt about topics such as redemption, authenticity, and friendship. PREFAC E ix Or at least this is my recollection. I try to imagine, to recreate, July 2015, listening to Malick’s recurring lectures about Plato’s two winged horses that every rider attempts to steer in her chariot of reason. One lifts its rider toward the heavens while the other pulls the whole vehicle (the soul) down to the earth. During these class sessions, Malick requested that nothing be recorded, nor anything written down. The seminar was to be lived in the moment and in the future only in its capacity for remem- bering and forgetting, two “currents” of memory living in mutual need, as Kierkegaard suggests. I remember the books he asked us to read: the Phaedrus, The Letters of Vincent van Gogh, The Gospel According to Mark, and Epictetus’s Discourses and Selected Writings. I remember the films he screened for us: Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai, Mizoguchi’s Ugetsu, Olmi’s Il Posto, and Fellini’s La Strada. I remember that the one film of his that he chose to screen was The New World. I remember that this theme of redemption, this theme that became mine as I rewrote my dissertation into this book, was his theme that he returned to with the most frequency. I remember that he seemed most concerned in hearing the students’ thoughts on these questions, through these films he screened and the books he offered for reading. As for everything else, I’m trying to remem- ber but I cannot. I wrote nothing down. My writing now cannot bring it back. It can only express in recollection and forgetting, the film that I play back in myself. For many of these same reasons, I avoided reading analyses of Malick’s films during my three years of research for this book. This also applies to recent works on film theory and film philosophy, most of which came late in the process. Although I address film semiology and sound theory, my purpose here is to move through a different process. There is a wealth of great scholarship on Malick, Deleuze, and cinema. But the majority of film theory and philosophy sees and listens to film from the distance of recep- tion, a distance taken and analyzed as visual (spectatorship) or textual (“readings”). I wish instead to take the films as they are and work through them on their own philosophical terms. My conscious effort, therefore, is to remove myself from film analysis in favor of penetrating cinematic expe- rience. I hope this keeps me true to the two central figures of this work: Deleuze and Malick. Deleuze’s mission in writing his two books on cinema was not film criticism or theory but proper Deleuzean philosophy. The intensity with which he writes about time, memory, sense, and difference, and his emphasis on a transcendental immanence, reveals the craft of a metaphysician more than a scholar referencing prior scholarship. Similarly, x PREFACE much of Malick’s uniqueness comes from it being nonreferential, nonlinear and noncategorical, which is one of the central themes of Deleuze’s meta- physical and ethical oeuvre. In the spirit of Deleuze’s monographs, this is mine on Malick, yet one written from a particular rather than total perspec- tive. It is not a comprehensive work on “Malick’s cinema” but, rather, a particular way of philosophizing Malick’s unseeing cinema, offering new concepts informed by cinema and philosophical texts. And like Deleuze, I wish at the same time to offer concepts that bring cinema together with questions and problems of experience, audibility, memory, and ethics that go beyond cinema, living as we are in a time of visual and textual noise. One such problem explored is the epistemological, nonbinary relation of sound and audibility. Sound theory and film sound theory tend to move toward and along the object of analysis, even as scholars occasionally write of the importance of events. Readers of Deleuze (specifically his writings with Félix Guattari) tend to couch hearing and listening in musical terms, as the two writers themselves often did. I wish to unsettle the study of what is named “sound” by giving emphasis not to music (aesthetic), nor to objects that make sound (phenomenological, empirical), nor to recordings or representations of sound (technological, historical, representational). Instead, this work gives thought to audibility: the experience of hearing and listening. As phenomena, “sound” is the unseen manifestation of what the Greek tradition has named, in a visual bias, as “appearances.” Audibility is then the experience of these unseen appearances, which I offer to recon- ceptualize cinematically as expressions of unseeing audibility. Because “understanding” in the philosophical tradition is grounded in images and statements, unseeing audibility gives time to different faculties and poten- tialities. Their expressions, cinematically, emerge in durations and reso- nances of imagined memory and the time that unfolds them in a coexisting multiplicity. This is a lived relation. And conceptually, it is a much different exercise from that of “observing” sound—studying it, analyzing it, and interpreting it from frontal, proximal, and distal perspectives. The arc of the book reflects the process of usurping distance and exten- sion with the aim of entering. It begins with analysis in order to progress gradually toward moving within cinema as itself, as immanent to nothing but itself. The first chapter opens a discourse on unseeing as a relation of memory, time, and audibility, which in the same effort addresses my chal- lenges to analytical, representational, and textual/linguistic thinking about cinema. The second chapter offers a means of penetrating into unseeing. It applies Deleuze’s conceptions of cinema to the audible PREFAC E xi dimension and the logos made of its relations within, culminating with a description of Malick’s logos. The next three chapters progress chronologi- cally through four of Malick’s films, beginning with Days of Heaven (DoH) and concluding with The Tree of Life (TToL). I emphasize these four films because, taken together, they are a progression of the more ethical themes offered here—unseeing as a manifestation of repetition, which invites an opening to unspoken expressions of redemption and forgiveness. Malick’s first film Badlands, which preceded Days of Heaven, is a rather straightfor- ward film as pertaining to the thematics offered here, and is acknowledged only for its voice narration. Malick’s post-TToL films, beginning with To The Wonder, fragment his unseeing to the point of destruction, a destruc- tion that will be addressed as well. The four films spanning DoH to TToL present their own evolving arc, a widening logos that moves from linear to multiple in its temporality, from presentation to audience to the unravel- ing of thought within, allowing for a widening of unseeing coexistence. These films are not so self-contained as they might seem, based on appear- ances alone. With unseeing as the philosophical theme and the immanent condition, each film comes to inform the others that follow, while those that follow repeat what came before. Through these four films, we there- fore open to a repetition in progress. This repetition is a philosophical concept. Although central to Deleuze, my appropriation of the concept is primarily informed by Kierkegaard. His repetition is a revisiting of what progresses, recreates, and in many ways reforms what has occurred before. My philosophical aim is to move these themes into areas of unseeing and audibility. My ethical wish is to give attention to Malick’s increased open- ing of hearing, allowing for another kind of listening that expresses a gath- ering and taking account as logos. The Tree of Life culminates themes of unspoken redemption that began with Days of Heaven. For this period, Malick is the philosopher of spirit, not a transcendent otherness but, rather, spirit born of those who need to gather, take account, reimagine. Perhaps, for one can only speculate, he is attempting his own redemption, a re-listening to himself through his persona-as-filmmaker, who takes account through the listening of his living intercessors. I owe a tremendous debt to so many who have helped me along this path, often with research and editorial suggestions and advice, but just as often with support, friendship, and conversation that had lasting effect on this work. This book was written on the move—in Busan, Berlin, Basel, Salento, Beijing, Zhuhai, San Francisco, and (mostly) Chiang Mai—and I am grateful to those who helped me to make homes of all of them. It is