A Critical Cinema 2: Interviews with Independent Filmmakers

a shift in responsibility in the writing. We collaborated on the voice "off" over the first three sequences, in the sense that although in the end Peter composed the text we both together collected the key words, making arbitrary associations and collecting a vocabulary. Then Peter arranged them as poems, but I was always looking and making suggestions. The last two sequencesthe mirror sequence and the British Museum sequencewere written completely by Peter. I might have done a little editing. I think the voice-over in the British Museum sequence, in particular, is an astounding piece of writing. I've been working on the myth of Pandora and the box in recent months, and I find I'm thinking about things

now

that were already there in the British Museum voice-over. It continues to set off resonances for me. I think it is very brilliant, perhaps particularly the way Peter creates a fragmentation of subjectivity. The "she" shifts around and you realize that the voice represents the child's

Page 338

point of view at some time in the future. It encapsulates, in a few lines, the feminist commitment to a fragmentation of subjectivity. This isn't just an avant-garde or postmodern strategy, it is a result of the way that femininity is an enigma in patriarchal society.

Being

the "riddle," women must make use of the heterogeneous in theory and aesthetics to figure out their own incoherent subjectivity.

The dream passage in the mirror sequence was written with a dictionary. Peter was trying to get a completely arbitrary association of words. I think he even used a French dictionary. He would look up a word, then find that word in the English dictionary and use the word

next to it

something like that, something to get a complete displacement of logical consistency, rather like Buñuel and Dali trying to break down personal associations in

Un Chien Andalou

[1929]. Out of that collection of words, he'd build up a series of fragments of images.

[

Wollen:

That's right. I took words from a French dictionary, according to an arbitrary system I had devised, and then incorporated them in sequence into a narrative. It's a technique that derives from Raymond Roussel. I also used some words from H. D. (pseudonym of poet Hilda Doolittle). When I wrote the earlier voice-off "poems" I was thinking of

Tender Buttons

by Gertrude Stein.]

MacDonald:

At what point did the use of 360-degree pans become clear as an essential element in the formal design? I first saw the film in Syracuse, when Owen Shapiro showed it. I was puzzled for the first three sections, but the minute the Louise story began, I was enthralled. I've never felt more exhilaration about a strategy for revealing a dimension of realityin this case, child care in a domestic settingthat conventional film didn't deal with.

Mulvey:

You never got to see

Penthesilea,

did you? It's been out of distribution for yearsthough Peter and I are trying to change that.

MacDonald:

No, I've not seen it.

Mulvey:

In

Penthesilea,

each segment was two continuous 16mm rolls of film run together, roughly twenty minutes. That gave us a formal logic, a pattern to work with, a constraint and a sense that our form was conditioned by something outside us. So in

Penthesilea

it was the literal material length of the roll of film. For

Riddles

we wanted an equivalent formal strategy, so we could still use long takes, but in a different way. The point of the decision in any take is: when do you end it? Is it ended because something dramatic happens on the screen? Is it ended because of some relationship to the mise-en-scène? Is it ended just because of some arbitrary whim of the director? The circular camera movement solved that problem for us. I must ask Peter what he thinks about this, but so far as I can remember, that first idea was a truly formal one.

[

Wollen:

I think it was a formal idea. I would also like to pay tribute to

Page 339

the camerawoman, Diane Tammes. It is extremely difficult to take ten minutes to walk a few feet around a tripod at an ultra-slow speed, keeping your eye pressed to a viewfinder and turning a gear handle at a constant tempo. It is even more difficult to do this over and over, varying the timing for each pan and still getting it right. It also demands very precise timing from the actors. Actors and camera had to arrive at the same time at the same place.]

Mulvey:

And

also,

I was still very involved with the question of the look and the relationship of the camera to the woman protagonist.

I

felt that the circular camera movement would inscribe the presence of the camera as apparatus into the film. I thought people would be conscious of the

place