[16] Jean-Louis Baudry Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematographic Apparatus [Av the end of The Ineprettion of Dreams, when he secks to integrate dream instruments, ditectly atached to scien their use in ideological products bi psyche as a whole in Cinthique (197), 08. 7-8 ard wed ere hy persion ofthe autho. Tes a neice fom Film Quart sud (Winer eological fet of the Base Apparatus 287 themselves provoke? Their scientific base would ensure them a sort of neutrality and help to avoid their being questioned, But already a q if we are to take account of the imperfections ofthese e. ome can speak of a restricted depth of ‘depend on 2 particular conception 1? Contemporary media specific characteris been protected by the like to establish forthe cinema a few guidelines which will need to be completed, ccconomic implica inscription, and between the inscription and the projection are situated certain has as its result a finished product. To the extent that (objective reality") this product does not ‘occupies an intermediate position in the work process which lads from raw material to fnished product. Though mutually dependent from other points of upage [shot breakdown before shooting] and montage [editing. done must be distinguished because of the essential diference in the rscnpin, obvi. fo the ie is not reducible to language) precisely in the place occupied by the camera. ‘between the finished product (possessing exchange value, a commodicy) the light lost, images inco an unrolling which ‘according to another scansion, the movement seized from (Gee the diagram). ‘Cinematographic specificity thus refers to a work, that is, to a process off transformation. The question becomes: isthe work ma sumption of the product bring about a “knowledge effect | iealed? If the latter, consumption of the product ied by ideological surplus value. On the practical level, this poses the288 Jean Louis Baudry pe << objective realty A Gighty fim socklemers<— eS (ound! we ‘The Eye of the Subject Central in the process of production’ of the fil perspective ofan image. But this much, inthe history of cinema: k eclogical Effet of the Basic Apparatus 289 In foctsing the optical on “virtual image” whose hall of an ideal vision and in this way from it seems to inspire all che idealist paeans hing point) and metonymically (by the ‘out: 2 subject is both “in place of” and “2 which the cinema has given290 Jean-Louis Baudry Projection: Difference Denied Nevertheless, whatever th differs from stil photography by tation 2 series of images. It “substantializing” character of seem (0 be instant of time of worked upon, elaborated, sl thus seem 10 counter the unifying, and ingle-perspectve image, taking res by which an illusion of continuity. dependent ‘on persistence of vision, is restored from discontinuous elements. These separate frames have between them differences that are indispensible for the creation of ovement, time). But only ion; they must be effaced of the adoption of a ie. in consequence of rendered incapable of his sense we could say that film—and perhaps this denial of difference: difference is necessary for it to live, butt ives on its negation. This is indeed the paradox that emerges Heclogical Effects ofthe Basic Apparatus 294 ifwe look del ata stip of proesed film: adjacent images ae almost exacly parison of images at 2 suficent distance fom cach other, We should toncmtor moreover te di material basis if we dreams, slips of IF as continuity destroyed, ecing what is in play the “language” of the unconscious, 3s, 1e marking of difference (but the marking is already negated, we the constitution of the perspective image with its mirror effec) the other hand, the mechanical apparatus both selects the minimal difference the camera) to be suppressed, io pla. The individual images as such disappear 0 jut movement and continuity are projection) of their relations, between the images. Thus one may presume 2s the originating bass ofthe perspective image, namely the eye, the “subject” is put forth, liberated (in the sense that a chemical ‘movement is after all only a partial. clementary aspect of a more general capability. To seize movement is t0 become movement, t0 follow a trajectory is to become trajectory, to choose 2roduce a antficial perspective ordering a epltd ation of the “transcen- reality images, sounds, ing in its quality of ego its cogitatu perhaps be found the status of the co be an image of ‘image scems to re inversion ofa founding hierarchy: "The te horizon” Limited ‘world offers up an ied by and implying the same time that the world’s object endowed with meaning, the action of the “subject” which provides a basis for the ‘objec in view refers to 2 synthesizing operation, othe unity of his consuting subject: Huse peaks “aspects” sometimes of “proximicy” sometimes of and “thers” 38 opposed to an 3 body” which appears sce moreover what happens JLB] Exch “aspect” which the mind ty of eorresponding modes of presentation. Thencarby ‘object may present itself asthe same, but under one or anther “epect.” There may be ‘variation of visual perspective, but also of “tactile” “acoustic” phenomena, or of other Helagial Effects of the Basic Apporatus 283 “modes of presentation as we can observe in divecting our attention inthe proper direction.” For Husser, “the original operation | the present sates of consciousness. And ” which constitutes this meaning: conti- poses the subject and it crcumscribes ‘complementary aspects ofa “formal” ‘continuity established through a system of negated differences and narrative continuity in the filmic space. The latte, in any case, could not have been that had been effaced at the level of the image could have reappear narrative level, giving rise to effects of rupture disturbing to the spectator place which ideology must both conquer and, in the degrce that it already dominates it, must also satisfy: fll, “What is important ina film is the feeling ‘which joins shots and sequ in such a way 25 to gi ” The search for such na from the material base, can only be explained by an But another supplementary operation (made possible by a special technical the mechanism thus described can wely a5 an ideological machine, so that not only the worked ‘but also the specific type of identification we have described wed darkened room and the scrcen bordered with black like a letter294 Jean-Louis Baudry leaves this ambiguity spectators head, darkened hall mise-en-scéne of | opological mode! of ‘conditions of a formative “This scene would be repented and reenacted in such a manner that the imaginary order (activated by a spec= ularization which takes place, everything considered, in realicy) full its par- eological Efets of the Basic Apparetus 295 as specifically the self finds a or verification of of the body itself but ipuish two levels of identification. The from the character portrayed as a center carrying an identity which constantly must be seized its the appearance ofthe first and places. ndental subject whose place is taken by the che objects in this “world.” Thus the spectator FY gathering of the of the self, giver of remains possible What emerges! by the cinema as support and instrument of ideology. Ie consticutes the “subject” by the illusory delimita 1—whether this be that of a god ‘oF of any other subs Iogical fect, of the subject, idealism, ‘Thus the cinema assumes the role played throughout Western history by various artistic formations. The ideology of representation (as a principal xis, required to constitute system in the cinema, Everyt himself being unable—and for a reason—to account for his own situation, it ‘was necessary to substitute secondary organs, grafted on to replace his own defective ones, instruments or ideological formations capable of filling his func 1 subject. In fact, this substcution is only possible on the condition that the instrumentation itself be hidden or repressed. Thus disturbing cinematic296 Jean-Louis Baudery lements—similar, precisely, to those elements indicatiig the return of the lancously with the revealing of the mechanism, chat. is ofthe inscription of the film work “The cinema ean thus appear asa sort of psychic apparatus of substcucon, corresponding to the model defined by the dominant Weology The system of hnas sits goal the prevention of deviations and del" Analogously one could say that ss recognized (we speak of the apparatus and not of the the process of “work” in its multiple determinations, among which must be ‘numbered those depending on instrumentation. This is why reflections on the basic apparatus ought to be possible co integrate into a general theory of the ideology of cinema spectacle wil ot be divulged as such. Only an ero o ick and this i » disagreeable sensation, the changes of Meological Efe of the Base Appareus 2977 be the ving marionete (Ia, 637) 26 eis 0 this point and in terms ofthe ments which wea tying to pu in place that 2r Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology A Film Theory Reader Edited by Philip Rosen (Columbia University Press New York 1986