Cand.

No: 119059 P3038 Film Theory: Ontology, Ideology, Difference

st
Explore a theoretical issue of ontology by analyzing films Zidane: A 21 Century
Portrait and Blow Job

From its technical and aesthetic inception in the latter half of the nineteenth century,

cinema has been preoccupied with its own reasons for being. What is film? Is it a

combination of earlier art forms, or can we regard its language as totally new and

original? What is it capable of? What effect does it have on us? More than a hundred

years of filmmaking since have given birth to an uncountable variety of films, many of

which were commenting on and reinventing previously known scope of the medium

and experiences it produced. It is still difficult to answer all of the questions. This essay

will focus on two unconventional films from two different centuries Zidane: A 21st

Century Portrait (2006) and Blow Job (1964). It will aim to prove that these films

constrain the work of an illusion-like impression of reality in order to use

expressiveness of film’s fundamental characteristics in the creation of motion picture

1
Cand. No: 119059 P3038 Film Theory: Ontology, Ideology, Difference

portraits. In the first part, this essay will use Andre Bazin’s observations on the

ontology of photography (The Ontology of the Photographic Image, 2004), as well as

Steve Neal’s overview of the history of film’s invention (The Invention of the Cinema,

1985), and ideas of Jean-Louis Baudry on the breaking of the fourth wall (Ideological

Effects of the Basic Cinematographic Apparatus, 1974). In the second part it will draw

upon the ideas of Bela Balasz ("The Close-up" and ‘The Face of Man’, 1999), Rudolf

Arnheim (Motion, 1957), and Seigfried Kraucer (Kraucer, 1960) on the possibilities of

film medium.

Film is a recorded series of still photographic images which, when shown on a screen

rapidly in succession creates the optical illusion of moving images, that causes us to

perceive a continuous motion, a movement sensation. The photographic images on

their own are well known for their objective character. As Bazin explains in The
2
Cand. No: 119059 P3038 Film Theory: Ontology, Ideology, Difference

Ontology of the Photographic Image (2004), “between the originating object and its

reproduction there intervenes only the instrumentality of a nonliving agent”, in other

words, a camera. The technical nature and the wide employment of optical instruments

in scientific practices make them reliable, but only in case if no obvious after effects

are added in later stages. Nowadays it is also possible to totally transform the

recorded material, or even create original images by means of digital technologies and

coding.

Thus the credibility of the source depends more on the way the result is achieved than

on the result itself. For instance, the perception of photographic image is completely

different from our perception of a painting: due to human psychology “we are forced to

accept as real the existence of the object reproduced” (Bazin, 2004). We can take a

look at a still from Andy Warhol’s Kiss with one of the many kissing couples filmed, we

see a man’s and woman’s heads and a bit of their shoulders, they join in a passionate

kiss. When we look at this still, as a matter of fact, we can say that this exact woman

and this exact men at some point were together in one room and kissed, which

allowed Warhol to produce this image. Whereas Gustav Klimt’s painting is rather a

fantasy than a document.

Specific use of the properties of the motion picture camera allowed to invent a unique

kind of motion that is comfortable for a human eye, which Steve Neale in his article The

Invention of the Cinema (1985) calls ‘natural motion’. ‘Natural motion’ together with the

objective character of the photographic image becomes for the eye an ultimate

guarantee of the real (Neale, 1985).

This union allows by the means of recorded (or programmed) moving images along

with other sensory stimulations to simulate experiences. The screening of a film

3
Cand. No: 119059 P3038 Film Theory: Ontology, Ideology, Difference

produces a moving image that is a reality of nature; it is in a way a hallucination, but

also a fact (Bazin, 2004). These illusions/ experiences communicate ideas, stories,

perceptions, feelings, beauty or atmosphere. Indeed when the person sits in a dark

auditorium, not allowed to move or speak, such realistic images can have a very

powerful effect on a viewer who gets in a hallucination-like state, where the ‘reality’ on

screen replaces reality of one’s being (exactly this effect is exploited by industry of

cinema, a popular mode of entertainment famous for its escapism).

The setting of cinema theatres – big screen, darkened room – reconstructs the

conditions of a psychological phase know as ‘mirror stage’, namely “immature powers

of mobility [or suspension of mobility] and a precautious maturation of visual

organization [or predominance of the visual function]” (Baudry, 1974). ‘Mirror stage’,

discovered by Jacques Lacan, is a process by which transcendental self unites the

discontinuous fragments into unifying meaning. According to Jean-Louis Baudry, this

effect possibly explains the ‘impression of reality’ that viewers get while watching a film

in a cinema (Baudry, 1974), or arguably in other settings too.

However, what will happen if we replace the ‘black boxes’ of cinema theatres, and

instead put films in the conditions of ‘white cubes’ of galleries? What are the films that

do not involve identification processes of infants? How and what are such films

capable of? This essay will examine films made by the habitués of the white walls of

the galleries, Andy Warhol and Douglas Gordon. Two films, Blow Job (1964) by A.

Warhol and Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait (2006) by D. Gordon and P. Parreno, can be

regarded as artistic experiments, which use filmic medium to fight against its own

effects.

4
Cand. No: 119059 P3038 Film Theory: Ontology, Ideology, Difference

Both films can be indeed considered filmic portraits in their aspiration to be perceived

as objects, and not as hallucinatory experiences that involve ‘mirror stage’. It is not

important whether the subject of portraiture was in the artists’ mind initially, or if it

followed as a derivation from their films’ artistic aims and self-awareness; it really can

be either way. The important part is that, like fine art portraits in the galleries, film’s

materiality and meanings in this case become an organic whole. This kind of an

approach takes us back to the point of film invention, when the institutions and

conventions were not yet established.

The first camera in the history of cinema was pointed at factory workers going on a

break (Elsaesser and Farocki, 2004). The Lumière film of 1895, Workers Leaving the

Factory, is though not as spontaneous as it looks, because firstly the workers were

assembled behind the gates and surged out at the camera with an operator’s

command (Elsaesser and Farocki, 2004). It is noticeable in the film that the actors,

simply factory workers, are aware of the filming: they try to make every movement

vivid. Similar to Workers Leaving the Factory, Blowjob (1964) or Kiss (1963), and

Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait (2006) can be categorized as non-fiction films. Workers

leave the factory when the operator commands so, the way they leave it every working

day. Likewise, actors from Andy Warhol’s Factory kiss, smoke, and have sex like they

would in real life, but also on command. True, Zinedine Zidane obviously agreed to be

filmed in advance, but during the actual filming, when numerous cameras around the

field were pointed at him, he just did his job, played his game.

5
Cand. No: 119059 P3038 Film Theory: Ontology, Ideology, Difference

Every film is primarily an object, either it is recorded on film or digitally. However the

illusory experience that it produces almost always overshadows film’s materiality.

Bazin wrote:

“The photographic image is the object itself, the object freed from the conditions

of time and space that govern it… it [the photographic image] shares, by virtue

of the very process of its becoming, the being of the model of which it is the

reproduction; it is the model” (Bazin, 2004).

The reproduction gets perceived as the model itself. For a film, which aims to be non-

illusionist, aims to be understood and experienced as a representation - that is a

problem to overcome. In Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait, a film that portrays one of the

legendary footballers Zinedine Zidane, the title already draws attention to the fact, that

you are not looking at Zidane (although in a sense one can say that is the case), you

are looking at a portrait of him, which makes a big difference. You are watching the

shots of a famous athlete edited together by artists, who had a specific purpose in

mind. Jean-Louis Baudry, when discussing the ideological effects of cinematic

apparatus, proposed that the “raw” material of reality undergoes a transformation

caused by a set of operations before it becomes a finished product. They did not only

edit the footage from the cameras, they mixed the sounds, and they added music and

subtitled text to certain sequences in film. That already adds a certain effect of

subjectivity.

As Baudry argued, only the revelation of filmic processes and techniques could make a

work “’readable’ in its inscription” and thus produce “knowledge effect”. Then the

6
Cand. No: 119059 P3038 Film Theory: Ontology, Ideology, Difference

viewers are left with no choice but to distance themselves from the cinematic text.

Place and time of film production usually differs from the place and time of film

projection. The point is that films are shot in one set of places, and then overtime

screened in whole different places, so that the process of production remains unknown

for the spectators. One way to resolve this situation is to reveal films materiality and

filmmaking processes on screen.

Zidane and Blow Job offer a very unusual film experience, mainly because they both

lack in narrative. Blow Job, that portrays a generally unknown man receiving oral sex,

at first gives an impression of a very simplistic and minimalistic film: one specific act,

one actor, same one setting, fixed position of a camera. Nevertheless, minimal

montage is present, as the film was recorded on ten 16 mm reels of film that had to be

put together. The specific choice of black and white film and a conscious decision to

eliminate sound are also a part of the above-mentioned set of processes that

transformed “raw” reality into a finished product. Thus Blow Job merely consists of

black and white soundless long shots of a man, or to be precise - his head and a bit of

shoulders. Actor’s position and facial expressions slowly shift from one to another:

from vivid expression of boredom to the moment of ecstasy and back. Only the title

Blow Job allows the viewer to make sense from what is happening on a screen, so

without it “the endless interpretations would have to begin” (Gidal, 2008: 41). After the

first minutes, it becomes clear for a viewer that throughout this 36-minutes long film he

or she will only see slightly variable repetition of the scene he is watching.

Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait was advertised as a documentary about a legendary

football player, so viewers were expecting to learn about Zidane’s biography, his path

7
Cand. No: 119059 P3038 Film Theory: Ontology, Ideology, Difference

to success. However, it is a film that depicts one single football match, Real Madrid

versus Villarreal on April 23, 2005. Organized in a form of a TV translation, this film is

92 minutes long – an average duration of a football match. Viewers experience almost

every second of this match, but from a very unusual perspective. All seventeen

cameras focus on one player - Zinedine Zidane. Similarly, after the first five minutes

spectators can already form an impression of what their filmic experience is going to

be like.

Both of the discussed movies employ “knowledge effect” described by Baudry,

however, due to a big time gap between them being produced, they use different

strategies. Blow Job was filmed on 16 mm film, at that time film was a predominant

material used for such purposes. The film is made up of the reels of film as shot,

without editing. Light seepage, numbering dots and edge numbers are left on purpose.

All those effects return viewers’ attention to film materiality. In his article Baudry writes

that the “raw material” of versatile reality is converted by a camera into images as seen

by someone’s subjective eyes. Mobility of the camera would intensify this illusion,

however, the above-mentioned Warholian camera’s immobility diminishes the work of

this effect. Warhol also gets rid of viewers’ possible identification with a narrative act,

whose depiction might be familiar to viewers from pornography genre films. Andy

Warhol depicts it completely different. He hides the act itself, and thus shifts the focus

of attention to actor’s face.

The sex partner in Blow Job is revealed at no point, so as many critics noticed - there

may, or may not be anyone giving the pleasure, and, even if there were, there is no way

of knowing whether it is a man or a woman. By not allowing you get involved in an act,

he forces you to stay distanced, “present only to the passage of time” (Gidal, 2008:

8
Cand. No: 119059 P3038 Film Theory: Ontology, Ideology, Difference

11). Peter Gidal notes that Blow Job is purposely slowed down by one third, it was

shot at 24 or 25 frames per second but is usually projected at 18 frames per second

(Gidal, 2008). Unendurable duration of the act exposes time’s material passage

through film (Gidal, 2008: 11). It is like film’s duration competes with the time of his

body trying to reach orgasm. Thereby, according to Baudry’s ideas, the impression of

reality in Blow Job is effectively ruptured and punctured.

Like in the Warhol’s film, the main act, such as the game of football as we are used to

see it, is happening somewhere outside the screen frame. Viewers see the ball only in

rare moments when Zidane takes control of it. Most of the time Zidane stands in a

position, while waiting for the ball, or runs around the field searching for an

opportunity. Again, time’s passage is unveiled in its materiality. In Zidane Douglas and

Parreno combined high definition video with the footage from 35 mm and 16 mm films.

They use extreme zoom in to the images to reveal the graininess of film, like in a

moment that focuses on Zidane’s football boots. Another moment that reveals

materiality of Zidane is a re-photography of the same exact match translated on

television: an extreme zoom in breaks down initially blurry image from a television

screen into a set of bright dots - red, green, and blue. The unity of time and place in

Zidane is only disturbed by 1) a ‘commercial break’ after the first half of the game was

over, and 2) a sequence with point of view shots of a person going up the stairs to his

seats in the stadium. This ‘commercial break’ is reminiscent of a common habit - to

search through TV channels while the game is on break. Douglas Gordon and Philippe

Parreno inserted a brief montage of the events of that day April 23, 2005: all kinds of

events and happenings, from an anniversary of Don Quixote to a car bomb explosion in

Najaf, Iraq. Such contrast makes us think of the match as just another happening in the

9
Cand. No: 119059 P3038 Film Theory: Ontology, Ideology, Difference

chain of those events. Moreover, some of the footage and images are of a poor quality,

which, again, instantly raise one’s awareness of the medium and the presence of

representation.

Additionally, throughout the films there are moments when you see Zidane through a

screen-viewfinder of operator’s camera, shot from behind cameraman’s back. Such

transparency of a film production draws attention to films materiality, making us

perceive film as an object of art.

It is after the film frees itself from its own illusion-like effects, that it can finally become

an object - in this case, a portrait - and use its fundamental features to raise questions

and enhance expressivity. Andre Bazin compares recording of events on film to

mummification of the dead. The invention of film fulfilled the basic psychological need

in humans for a defence against the passage of time and forgetfulness.

“It [film] retains and restores the things memory alone can’t recover, not to

mention its auxiliary agencies: the written page, drawing, photography. It is due

also to the fact that the very motion, which seemed to demonstrate life and

memory, the final defeat of time, - embodied also the workings of time, loss and

death themselves” (Neale, 1985: 54).

Workings of time and death, manifested in film medium’s ability, even requirement to

show temporal changes, are trapped in an infinite attempt to overshadow life and

memory, that lie in film’s extraordinary capacity to capture (and make expressive)

10
Cand. No: 119059 P3038 Film Theory: Ontology, Ideology, Difference

motion and emotions. This and other capacities of film medium are perfect for creating

a portrait of a man, as never before in painting, photography or literature.

Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait, in this sense, is an ultimate exhibition of motion.

Throughout the whole match there is no single moment of stillness; even if Zidane is

waiting for the ball, or stops to save his energy, cameras moves with his inhales and

exhales. In Zidane cameras are constantly mobile, and the additional motion

experience is added by editing together shots from different points of view.

As stated above, of these two films, the most motion we see in Zidane, as expected

from a movie about sports. Sports can be recognized as one of the ‘cinematic’

subjects described in Kraucer’s The Establishment of Physical Existence (1960: 3). No

medium before film could fully transmit the experience of watching a football match; its

representation in the media thus completely changed with the invention of a camera

and projector. Zidane’s playing style is a great source for the ‘nascent motion’ effect,

described by Kraucer (1960). In it, the rapid episodes of chase contrast with

footballer’s moments of inaction and wait. Moreover, the kinetic power of movement is

combined with a physical display of emotions and reactions of amazing clarity. Rudolf

Arnheim argued that motion on screen is very expressive (Motion, 1957). He suggests

that in his movements, glances and gestures, a person reveals his character and his

attitude towards the action he is performing (Arnheim, 1957). In Zidane the whole lot of

attention is brought to his physical abilities and his gestures.

This is the power of film’s medium to show things normally unseen. The extreme POV

shots like a birds-eye view from the roof of the stadium. Not many people see Zidane

11
Cand. No: 119059 P3038 Film Theory: Ontology, Ideology, Difference

as from the point of view of another football player present with him on the field.

Zidane gives you an experience almost impossible two see without cameras. In a

sequence it edits together shots from multiple views, you cannot move around a

person with such speed and seeing face so close.

Bela Balasz writes that “the most subjective and individual of human manifestations” is

a facial expression. When watching Warhol’s Blowjob audience experiences motion

primary from the movements of the actor, mainly his physiognomy. Shown in motion,

facial expression is like a melody: the last note is already present in the first note

(Balasz, 1999). The emotions thoughts and ideas that we get from human

physiognomy exist outside the space. The extreme close-ups of Zidane’s face show us

things that we do not normally see when following a football match, moreover, we

would not be able to catch little mimic expressions in such vividness and detail as on a

screen. No dialogue or monologue is needed in Zidane; emotions get expressed

through physiognomy. Although throughout the movie Zidane does talk several times –

to his teammates, to the referee - but the phrases are fragmentary and indistinct, as if

the filmmakers want spectators to pay attention to face, rather than anything else.

During the match Zidane wears a mask of incredible concentration, his eyes focus on

the ball, even when his eyes are shadowed under the massive brows, we know where

he is looking.

In Blow Job, shadowed eyes make young actor’s glance ambiguous. In contrast to

Zidane, it is difficult to read his thought; it is difficult to even imagine what was going

through his mind. The alignment of the eye-line means the actor’s eyes are looking at

your eyes, and vice versa. However, what would be a simple convention in fine art

12
Cand. No: 119059 P3038 Film Theory: Ontology, Ideology, Difference

portraiture has a profound effect when transferred to film. Young man’s glance slides

from one corner of the frame to another, at one point he might look outside the frame,

but then again at you, or even through you. Thus the spectator is put into position of

being looked at, so that suddenly the role of subject and the role of an object get

reversed.

Any cinematic portrait is formally restricted to the borders of film’s frame, reminiscent

of western easel painting, so we can only obtain knowledge of what we see and

nothing else. Although in comparison to a painting, in film it still is reasonable to

question what is outside of it. “The world of a painting is not continuous with the world

of its frame” (Cavell, 1979: 24).

In Blow Job we never see the sexual partner, however his or her presence is not less

real for invisible. In Zidane, the ball, the other players are also happening somewhere

there, while he is waiting for the ball.

This essay focused on the effects of essential features of film as a medium. It

explained main Baudry’s ideas regarding the ‘knowledge effect’ and applies them to

chosen films in order to unveil how given filmmakers deployed film’s distinct properties

and produced a distancing effect in their texts. Both films have various similarities,

despite the different experiences and critical commentary they offer to viewer. This

only emphasizes the single origin of all movies that lies in a field of studies of ontology.

It as well emphasizes that the fundamental properties of film medium have a certain

limiting effect on what you can or cannot do with its help, although in the end this

limitedness only endures creativity, as visible in the final products. The actual

13
Cand. No: 119059 P3038 Film Theory: Ontology, Ideology, Difference

relocation of film exhibition from dark movie theatres to brightly lit rooms of galleries

will have no affect at all. This idea of physical relocation serves only as a metaphor for

how we treat films. In the second part of essay, it becomes obvious that

mummification in plastic arts is that of motion and emotion. Two dimensions through

various intersections and cooperation create the multiple layer of a portrait.

Bibliography
Arnheim, R. (1957) 'Motion', in Film as Art, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University
of California Press.
Balasz, B. (n.d) 'The Close‐up'.
Baudry, J.‐L. (1974) 'Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematographic Apparatus', Film
Quarterly, vol. 28.2, Winter, pp. 39‐47.
Bazin, A. (2004) 'The Ontology of the Photographic Image', in What is CInema? Vol. 1,
Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.
Cavell, S. (1979) The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film, Cambridge,
Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press.
Elsaesser, T. and Farocki, H. (2004) Harun Farocki : working on the sightlines, Amsterdam:
Amsterdam University Press.
Fried, M. (n.d).
Gidal, P. (2008) Andy Warhol: Blowjob, London: Afterall Books.
Griffin, T. (n.d).
Kraucer, S. (1960) 'The Establishment of Physical Existence', in Theory of Film: The
Redemption of Physical Reality, New York: Oxford University Press.
MacCabe, C. (1976) 'Theory and Film: Principles of Realism and Pleasure', Screen, vol. 17.3,
Autumn, pp. 7‐27.
Neale, S. (1985) 'The Invention of the Cinema', in Neale, S. Cinema and Technology: Image,
Sound, COlour, London and Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Sarris, A. (1968) 'The Illusion of Naturalism', The Drama Review: TDR, vol. 13, 2, Winter, pp.
108‐112.

14