Panel 2: Film and Location



Panel 2: Film and Location

“The Urban Ecology of Jim Jarmusch’s Paterson

Caren Irr (Professor and Chair of English, Brandeis University)

“Shooting Location, Cine-Hydrology, and The Revenant

Mario Trono (Associate Professor of English, Mount Royal University)

Q & A

Have questions or comments? Feel free to take part in the Q&A!

Before posting, you must first register. Note that questions and comments can be intended for individual speakers, the entire panel, or anyone who has posted to the Q&A. Respond directly to a particular question/comment by way of the little “reply” below it. The vertical threadlike lines are there to make it easier to see which part of the discussion (i.e. “thread”) you are taking up. You can choose to be notified via email (see below) whenever a question, answer, or comment is posted to this particular Q&A. Because the email notification will contain the new comment in its entirety, you can both follow the discussion as it is unfolding, as well as decide whether you would like to step in at any point. You can choose to receive email notifications for as many of the conference Q&A sessions as you like, as well as stop notifications at any time. Because the Q&A sessions will close at the end of the conference, all email notifications will also end at this time. Although only registered conference participants can pose questions and make comments, Q&A sessions are visible to the public and will remain so after the conference has ended, as we hope that they will become cited resources.

18 replies
  1. Caren Irr says:

    Thank you, Mario, for this very stimulating talk. I’m really interested in your account of green film as a kind of ecotone. I wonder if you have more to say about whether this kind of analysis would necessarily work against an auteurist vision–for example, by undermining the individualist and anthropocentric presuppositions of such an approach. Do you see anti-auteurism as a necessity for ecologically astute filmmaking?

    • Mtrono says:

      As a further thought, I guess I am advocating a shifting (shifty?) critical pluralism, concerned more with changes in eco-critical social consciousness than I am in finding the one shining, consistent, and best path to ‘proper’ examination of cinema. But that’s really just an acknowledgment anyway of the pluralism that’s out there anyway if one considers the totality of approaches to film going on at once. My fantasy, of course, would be for critics to be able to go rogue in terms of copyright violation and undertake whole movie re-cuts in order to draw out–or outright create–eco themes, elements, affects, etc. using the materials that corporate entities use to saturate societies’ visual fields. One can dream. 😉

  2. Mtrono says:

    Thanks, Caren, am looking forward to seeing your video either tonight or first thing in the morning.

    That’s a fantastic question. My sense is that filmmakers may or may not aspire to auteur status (that is, behave and create like auteurs, as I believe someone like Iñárritu does, a director who is so ‘out there’ in the field of reception for his films) but either way they cannot ultimately control reception, interpretation, or remediation. That is not to say they do not have enormous influence over the public (especially students) with their statements of directorial intent and the formal structures of their films which obviously encourage some kinds of readings over others. But I see what you’re getting at and will say, yes, my argument accepts as axiomatic that audiences (and especially critics) must be ready to dispense with intentionality and read against film texts (ideologically and otherwise) as necessary–or NOT, as necessary. I mean, if ecocinema critics are activist in the sense of wanting readings of films to carry eco-critical; agency on the cultural field and to have effects well, they may need to be flexible, depending on the film. I would not read against the Italian film Gomorrah (2008) for example, as it is brilliant ecocinema that aesthetically and intellectually beats at least this critic to the punch. But I somewhat read against a film like The Revenant because of some of its tropes, though, as you saw, I find other features promising if placed within various eco-critical contextualizations. Frankly, I would welcome auteurism lite, or not, depending on what that impetus and the resulting films DO or do NOT do ‘out there’ in reception. There is precedence for what I’m advocating, of course: the sea change, from a feminist perspective, in North American cinema since the 50s. Audiences, filmmakers, activists, critics, over decades, changed film and film reception and continue to do so. Any further thoughts? Please feel free to disagree, qualify, etc. 🙂

    • Caren Irr says:

      Hi again, Reading against director’s intention seems totally reasonable to me, especially in the context of a film like The Revanant; you show so persuasively how the significance of land and site in Alberta differs substantially from the use made of it in the film, and that difference certainly authorizes a new reading. I guess I was wondering whether a “new materialist” would imagine multi-species agency as resulting in new forms of multi-species auteurism. Or, in the case of your interest in cine-hydrology whether we might envision something like a hydro-auteur?

      • Mtrono says:

        Well, the term ‘multi-species auteurism’ is just delicious, that would be a lot of fun to theorize. For me though, new materialism, with its ascribing of agency to assemblages and forms of matter, seems rather at odds with the term ‘auteur’ which has always functioned it seems to me as a kind of valuation of one player’s/actant’s agency over another, at the expense of acknowledging the full spectrum of agencies (and their networks) that come together to produce any kind of process or phenomenon. There may be recent articulations of auteur theory I haven’t heard of though that might make it seem otherwise to me.

  3. Mtrono says:

    Caren, a comment more than a question. You really helped me understand why I felt the way I did after watching Paterson. I felt good but was never sure exactly why. I think it’s because the film is a kind of consolation, a harmonious vision, and functions in a creative (hence positive) mode. Your eclectic mix of references (which are not eclectic but organic in the frames of the film)–(eco)stoicism, modernist/postmodernist tensions & resolutions, and Buddhist mindfulness–all combine with the harmonious framing, along with the diegetic aspect involving balance between the protagonist’s poetic and workplace labours. Seeing it all as such is to be like Paterson (or Jarmusch) himself, surviving in a creative mode. Very interesting and thanks.

  4. rlmurray50 says:

    Hi Caren, Thank you for you focus on urban ecology, as well as your application of ecostoicism, an approach that might apply well to a documentary Joe and I have explored, *Beetle Queen Conquers Tokyo.* Before watching *Paterson* I was skeptical, primarily because Adam Driver served as its protagonist (maybe because of his role in *Francis Ha*). I enjoyed the film in spite of Driver, but your reading of the film and its relation to its director Jarmusch as auteur added reason to my emotional responses. Thank you for illuminating your perspective on ecostoicism with such a careful close reading of the film’s stylistic elements. Including a non-Western figure may also add weight to your reading. Do you think you could apply this intriguing approach to select mainstream Hollywood films?

    • Caren Irr says:

      Hi, I think that certain themes verging on ecostoicism appear in Hollywood films, though usually as a moment to be overcome (kind of like a queer relationship relinquished in favor of a “happy” heterosexual ending). I’m thinking here of something like Timon and Pumba’s ecotopic moments in The Lion King–a set of relations that Simba must reject in order to take his supposedly rightful place on the throne. As for non-Western films with a related sensibility, I have been considering, in another context, Abderrahmane Sissako’s Heremakano (Waiting for Happiness) in this vein. I’m sure there are others. Some of Takeshi Kitano’s work comes to mind. Japanese filmic aesthetics post-Ozu are certainly a huge influence onJarmusch.

      • rlmurray50 says:

        I can definitely see ecostoicism in some of Takeshi Kitano’s films (one of my favorite filmmakers). Thanks for introducing me to Sissako’s *Waiting for Happiness*–I hope to access it soon.

  5. rlmurray50 says:

    Hi Mario. Thank you for your enlightening talk. Your reference to the Bechdel Wallace test made me smile. We have struggled with the power film might have to change audience behaviors. Our work on cli-fi highlighted that viewing a spectacular mainstream film like *The Day After Tomorrow* may enlighten audiences about the reality of climate change (at least temporarily), but such knowledge does not necessarily lead to behavioral changes. I most appreciated your exploration of water in the film.

      • Joseph Heumann, Eastern Illinois University says:

        Hi Mario:
        Robin is involved with the Dogs and Eco Trauma presentation. Me, too. Liked your reading on Revenant. I especially hate how the white man is always able to shoot a first nation opponent from a moving horse with a single flintlock pistol. Those moments are very confounding.

          • Joseph Heumann, Eastern Illinois University says:

            We saw that doc and just about every western we could get our hands on before writing Gunfight at The Eco Corral:Western Cinema and the Environment. Revenant is pretty predictable, but your eco reading gives it the nuance it needs for a complete analysis. It’s such a rip of Man In the Wilderness. One reason we wanted to see it. Leo replaces Richard. Now Leo needs a hit song, too.

            • Joseph Heumann, Eastern Illinois University says:

              But I forgot to add that your cine-hydrology approach is really forceful and has people looking again at this dominant in this film. It’s a very productive analysis and since we work on water all the time I would say it opened my eyes to ways of seeing that I haven’t always thought about by using your approach. It’s a nice way to open up this film for us.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply