Carnival of Souls: Are we ghosts in the
city?
Introducing
Herk Harvey’s Carnival of Souls (1962)
at A Nos Amour’s pop-up screening this Thursday, Rodger Clarke began by
contextualising early cinema within other historical technologies of
entertainment. He outlined the early competition between X-ray and Cinema as
forms of amusement and explained that, at the turn of the 20th century,
both were features of pop-up urban spaces, found mainly at travelling fairs.
Alongside ghost shows and mechanised rides, cinema and X-ray evoked awe and
astonishment, poised half way between feats of science and enigmatic
apparitions. That early film was emerging in these transient spaces, alongside
X-ray and ghostly spectacles, goes some way to explaining film’s long
fascination with the ghoulish; an obsession which is at the heart of Carnival of Souls. It was therefore an
apt choice for a pop-up film showing; the ghosts on screen, as illusionary as
the shadows of cinema, were in turn as fleeting as the happening itself.
The
history of these contending technologies of entertainment betray two converse
urban epistemologies; one, a gaze which sees through to the dry bones of
reality, and the other; a world of shadows and illusions. Whilst X-ray (now)
maps the body objectively, cinema, as
its counterpart, layers parallel realities over one another. Extended to
urbanism, we can understand mapped city spaces as the equivalent to the X-rayed
body, known and chartered, whilst pop-up comes nearer to the world of cinema
and indeed, to the world of ghosts; a spatiality across which plural temporary
worlds flicker, real only in the moment they are seen.
The
scenes that haunted me longest from Carnival
of Souls were the ones in which a bewildered Mary stumbles around a town
which she can no longer engage with, which no longer sees or hears her. Harvey’s
simple but effective method of cutting the sound drives home the fact (if we
hadn’t already guessed it from the endearingly suggestive opening scene) that
Mary is a ghost in the city. Confused
and alone Mary flees first to and then from Utah, but finds herself repeatedly
shut out. Unlike the traditional ghost, able to transcend walls, doors, etc.
Mary is trapped by a sensory disjuncture which holds her back from the normal,
human world. Her footsteps remain amidst the silence, but the clash of her heels
against the city streets only reiterates the border between herself and the
living.
Yet
her separation is not absolute. Suffering a delayed and gradual death, Mary
flickers in and out of focus, at one with the world, and then horribly at odds
with it, one moment pumping holy organ music to her appreciative neighbours and
the next trapped in an oppressive silence, accompanied only by the most unholy
of ghosts. The same can be said of pop-up cinema. Temporary and permanent city
spaces co-exist like Mary and the good people of Utah, separated by different
rhythms of time (pop-up VS permanent, life VS endless death) but falling into
sync at certain junctures to meet each other.
Are
pop-up cinema goers, then, the ghosts of the city? We find ourselves, like
Mary, in the empty space of entertainment; we, the cinema after hours, she the
dilapidated pavilion. And just as the ghosts are raised from the lake by Mary’s
presence for one last dance at the end of Carnival
of Souls, A Nos Amours drag up un-dead celluloid footage to resurface in
the light of the contemporary city. Perhaps it is telling that whilst X-ray
disappeared as a form of urban entertainment to become the objective vision of
science, cinema, the world of illusion, won out. The screen and the city are
natural companions, both spaces of multiplicity, transience and imagination. Escaping
from the mapped city, A Nos Amours offers a returned attentiveness to the
ghostly, a re-engagement with buried films and a throwback to the moving spaces
of the travelling fair, to the urban experience as one of intense, fleeting,
spectral moments.
Ella Harris is a freelance writer and theorist researching
temporary spatiality and pop-up cinema. She read English at Balliol College,
Oxford, before going on to work in the field of Cultural Geography at
postgraduate level. Ella also works as a script reader and developer.
If, as Barthes says, people in photo's are always dead (he means, the person existing in that instant, AND he was glum because his mum had died) then perhaps it is pop-up moving-images which show us (in that sense) "endless death".
ReplyDeleteCoS certainly got to me when I saw it, years ago - a pre-dawn Melbourne tv channel, running 'lost' movies on a 6-month loop forever. It is 'outsider art' cinema - the affect (emotional effect) is inseparable from the naivety of the film-making. Two other examples are 'Phantasm' (1989) and (much less naive, but a low-budget first film) George Romero's 'Night of the Living Dead' (1968). It forces us to ask ourselves, what did the filmmaker intend? How much is 'unconscious genius' or 'happy accident'? But then, isn't this snobbery? Can 'insider' directors really claim auteurship of their work's precise effect on us?