brecht cinema realism (1)

8/6/2019 Brecht Cinema Realism (1)

1/14

Copyright Noti.ceStaff aad sr:~d.ents of Laacaster University are reminded that copyright subs istsjn th lis extractand the work from wh ich itwas taken. This Digital Copy ~M beenmade under u he te rm s of aC LA lke no o w hich allo ws YOiU to :~ a cce ssand do wnlo ad a co py ;~prjnt ou t a cO IYY;Tbis Digital Copy an d any Gigita.l or printed copy supplied to Qr made by you under th e te rm soHh i s L ic -e nce - are fo r lise in eonneetioa with this Courseof Stu dy " Yo 1I may retai n suchcopies aftertheend of the COUFSe . b l G t strictly for your own personal use.A.U copies (including electronie copies) shall include this Copyright Noti.ce and shan bedestroyed and/or deleted ~ifnd when requured hy t he : UU] i ve ' rsw l y_Except as provided for by c:opyrigftlll~


2/14

Theoretical essaysNotesI. 1'to~atidll:!ll 'll1es, f fs S t1 i s uirJtJ L!~S (le S~t1i.l,Paris, 197] I, p- 13.2, Itw(Jl!I~clh e w r un g tu I hin k thll~ So;;t~~fl wa s t il ~ (In.ly i nf lu e nc e i n t h L ~ p [' O ce s s_ the h is to rv o f in rle -~ tn Je nt f il m ill the seventies hM yel to b e w r tr te n.h wO " u l cl ~ h[ 1 b e . . .. . .a n g eo cnndernn Out of h~ nd ~ H t n ( ) < s e f i lms w hLeh W~Tef or m .~ lI y e xp er nn cn ta l a .t !ldpoldtically conce rned - I 'h il M u HC i} ', s 1 f t dl!eI 'om s' or Lau ra M ulv~y Mel P et er W o He -f ], s .Pe.!"Hll~sjj'e1Jat~ [ml}' t .....examples ormrns that cre9ted ami usetl new spaces inthe cinema. Never-

t heless, IDu . ooh t ha t. w as p ro du ce d e he n d id C{lwfun'tl l to


3/14

The elassie Te a li .s~ ~extC! iHc . i : sm, tit le as e M .'!r xi s t cr tt icis m ,m u st p ro ct :cd rn et hm iic aU y a ndeoneretely ineach case r in short sdentlficllUy. Loose talk is (lJ 110h~lph er e, w ha te ve U s .v oca bu la ry . I n. afl circumstances ce n the neceSSjl_j'yg-uide-liMs .klr ;1. prSictical.cldinitlof.! of real ism be derived frnm lin:rruywo rk s . '! lo T ' l! ~ .B t: lik e T o~ .s to y - bu t Wi.lhout h is w e !l kn e s se s ~ B e l ik eH sJz ac - 0 1 " 1 1 Yup -r e -d s te l ~ReaJU sm is :a n is su e n ot 0 0 11 " ,or literature:His a.majoI poJit.i cal, phHosopnica land pracrical issll~ llnd must behandled and expl!1l ined as such - as , : ; 1 matter ofgenefiill humeriinterest _ ' . j XIX , . : m 7 , J

One of the dWkulties of anydH scussion about re


4/14

Theoretical essaysthing represemed does not appear in a moment ofpure Identi tyas it [ears Ut.seUout of the worM and presents incH, but ratheri~c~u:ght in an articulation in which each object is Jdincd inaset of differences ami oppositions.[t is this separation thatthe unwritten tex~attempts to anne~l!

to make whole, through de'nying its Own status 818writing - asmar ks of material dj f fereF l lcc distributedthrough time and space.Whereil s other dlsconrses within the text are considered asmaterial which


5/14

Theoreti cale ssaysKlute and Bree pack their bags to leavethe soundtrack recordsBree at her la,st meeting With her psychiatrisr. Her own esti-InJtlO!l of the situation. is that i~most probably won't work butrhe tClitity oJ the Image ensures us t hOi t this isthe way it willresl ly be. Indeed Bree 's mUl1!0101lu.e is even more interesting -for in rela t ion ~0 th~ real ity of the irnage It rna rks !I. definiteadvance on her previous 5tat ements. She has gamed insightthrough the ]?~Qrrdevelopm em and like many good heroines ofclass ic realist ~exts her discourse is more nearly adequate to thetruth at the end ( l i f the HIm than at the beginning . .BUt ]f apro-g re ssio n to ward s kn ow le -d ge is what marks Bre e j. it is pOS5 essionof knowledge wh ich mar ks the narrative I the reader of the filmand John Klut e himself. For Klute is privileged by the narrati veas th e one character whose discourse i s a ls o 11 . d isco ur se o f know 1 ~edge . N o~ .o nl y is Klute a d ct ec tivC an d th us can so l w e th e p ro ble mo il his friend' s d isa pp earance - he is also amanl and a man whobecause he hils not come into contact withthe ciry has not hadhis viriljty undermined. And it is as a full-blooded man that hecan know not only the trutb of the m V9tery ofthe marders butalso the truth 01the woman .Bree.Far from being a f ilm whichgoes any wayto portrayill.g a woman liberated from male defi-nition l8 i common cri t ical r e sponse J , KJwee:x:acd vguaranteesthat the realessence ofwoman can onl V bediseevered and ddlnedhYiI.m>ln,The anal y s is sketched here if) obviously very schematie butwhat., hopefully, it does show i8 that the structure oJthe classic,realisrt ext can be ~ound in Illrn aswell That. narrat ie of events- the knowledge which the film provides o .f howthings realiyare - is the me~~bng1"l~ge in which we can talk of the variouschar ac ters in the fHm. Wha twould sti ll remain to be done in theelabor. . .ioa clthe srructurf; (lIthe el ilUlc realist tcx t in cmemais 11 morn ; detailedaccount of the actual mechanisms by whichthe narrati ve is pr iilcged t and the way in which one or more ofthe characters within the narrative can be equally privileged) andalso a his.tory of the development of t o is dominant narrati ve. Onthe syud :ucm:ic level itwould be necessaryto


6/14

Theorettcal essaysnecessary to investigate the workings of an operation that is o,ite:nopposed to representation, namely montage.ill 1 : 1 1 8 essay on 'Word and i ITh l ige in T he F il m S en se , Eisensteind ef in es m o nt ag e ..A m o:o ,g st n um e ro us e xa mp l e s ( ) i f ffl.(l'O,uge he

quotes. the following from Ambrose Bierce's F~nM8fi.c Pables:A W eman ] 1 1 . w ido w' s w ee ds was weI.;Bl 'i : l lg :pon a. grave.'Console ymuseU, madam' said 11 . Sympstherlc SrrangeL'Beaven' s merc ies are infini te . There is anather man somewhere ,beside your husband, with whom you can sti ll be happy. ''There was,' she $obbcd - 'd :um~was, btl1 this ];s hi;s grave.'

~Eisenstein ]968 14- 15~Eisenstein explains the effect of this fable in te rms of an inter -action. he tween the visual representatinns in the s eorv . Thewoman is a r epresentation and so is the mourning dress - theyare, in Eisenstein's cerms, objlectivl{;ly representable - hut theiuxtaposiemn off these reprcecntaeionsgives rise to a new imagethin is no r r epresenta hle - namel y tha t the WOm


7/14

Theoretieal essaysthat there are different locations from which we can see. But inall cases the s ight remains the same - the activity ofrepresen-ration isnot the deterrmmng factor in the sight seen hut simp]"the place frem where it is seen. The inevitable result of this isthar there is something the same which we 1 1 . 1 1 sec hut whichappears differently because ofom posnton, Bm if there is ici,(!ntity.i fthere is something overand above the views which can bere c et ved 8i t different [loin rs then [his idcn tity m us t b e discernablefrom some other 'POilU of view', And.this neutral point. of viewis exact ly the 'represenratlons shot from a single set-up'.What is at. workm Bisenstein's argument is theidr.:a thatthere is some Iixed reality which is. available to us tromanobieet lve point of vi.ew ~th~single set-up}. Monuge is simplypurring these fixed elementstogether in such < I way that thesubject brings forth other elements in his experience - 11mwithoutany ehange in the identities, the elements that arebeing rendered, It Isessennslto realiserhar this account leavesD O th subj ect and obiecrunchallenged and that men tage becom esa kind ofsuper-representation which is more effective at demon-stn.ting the real qualities ofthe object through the links it canform within the subject, Thus Eisensrein would analyse theBierce story asthe representation ofa given set o~dements whichaile firse organised in one way then in another, There are rhowever , no such set of fixed elements in the Bierce story. It i: snorrha t there is 11 . set ofelements whichthe reader composes ' inhis mind;but rat herr hat these elem ents are gah:!Oaclyeterrn inedhy the method ofrepresent at ion_WhOl i t Eisens tein ]gFlores is thatthe method ofrepresentarion [the language: verbal 01' cinematic]determines in rts structural act ivity [the opposit ions which canbearriculared] both the p].lIceswnere the obi~ct 'appears' and the'point' from whichthe 0bject is seen ,It ]s this point which isexaccly the place allotted to the r~aJ.~ngsubject.A carefulanalysis of the Bierce story mOlYenable us to discover

how montage opera te s


8/14

Theoretical essaysthere are ~.set of oppns irions of an emotional na ture ~she d o e s ordoes no t moum :so'~emanl which the stranger cannrxarticulateoutside the oppositions determined by rhc legal rebhonship.Bierce's story, rhreugh the coincidences. betweenthe discourseson one level, sugges ts to Eisem;te in a set of identtues in theworld. But the identmes rest in the discourses. " I hU8 opposed toEisen 5tein' s concep f ofmon rage res t ingon the] uxtap asit ions ofidenti ties alread y rendered, we could talk D f montage as the effectgencuted by a conflict oJ discoursein which the oppositionsavailable in the juxtaposed discourses are cont radictory and inconflict.All [his byway of explaming that the classic realist text [aheavily 'closed' discourse) cannot deal With the real in its centra-dictions andthat in. the same movement ir Iixes the suhjec~ ina po int of vi.ew from w hicheverything becomes obvious. Thereis, howe ver J a level of contradic han into w hich the classic H::a]is,ttexr can enter, This isthe comradlction between the dominantdis course of the rextand the dominsnr ideologic 8 1 1 discourses. ofthe time. Thus a classic realist text un which ~ strike isrepresen ted as a ius lstruggle in which oppressed workers attemptto gain some oftheir rightful wealth would be in contradictionwith certain contemporary Ideological discoursesand as suchmight be classified as progress ie. It is here tha t subiect mat t erenters int 0 the argument and where we Can Imdthe jus t ifica t ionfor Marx and Engels's praise of Balzac and Lenin'stexts on therevoludonaryforce ofTolstoy's texts which ushered the Russianpeasant on wthe stagt:of history'. Wirhm cenremporary films onecould think of the films of Cos r1lJ-Garas Of' such tel evisioadocumentaries as Cmlly Come Home. What is, bow ever , s ti llimposslble for the classic realist text is to of[\erany perspectivesfor stru,gglc due to its inabiliry to invesrigmecontradicucn, Itisthus no t surprising that these mms~en~~ ei ther to be linkedro ,1 socia l dem ocrauc conception off p ro g;re 8s - if we to.yea]injustices then. they will go away - or certain ouvrieri$te tend-encles whlch tend to see the working class, omsideany dia-lectical mcvement.as the simple possessors. of truth. It is 81 1 thispointthar Brecht's demandthar Iiterary and artistie productioasbe regarded as social eventsgsins its force. The: contradictionsbetween the dorn inan t d15course in a classic real ist text and thedominant ideologlcal disccuzses at work in a society are what44

Realism. and the cinema.provide the criteria Ior discriminating withinthe etas.sk realisttext. And~be~ecriteria will often resolve themselves mto ques-tions ofsubject-matter. That this tendsto leave open O I n y ques-tion about the eternal values ofart is not something that shouldworry us. As Brecht remarks:

To be (Tank, I d o .n ot s e t s u ch a ae x ce ss sv el v h :i g; hv sl ue o n t he c on ce p tofenduranc e. How ca n weh)r:ege~ whethe r future generaeions w i. nwi sh c o p r e se r ve the m em o ry o f th e se f igmtt : : s U igur es c . re . tl le d by Balzac01 TaJ.tUiDyF IB~izat : :and Tols tov win s ca rc el y b e i n :J position t o ob l ig ~the~nlJ .! o fl o s o , huwevcI ingen ious~he met bods wiJh whid] th ey se ~their plots in motion. 1 [ suspect itwill depend. on whether it winbea socially Fdevant statement if oomecm( l savs. 'That' land. 'that' willrefer to a cont emp'iJ:UHyIis


9/14

Theoretical essaysthat the unproblematic taking up of the position of the subjec tentails the repression of the whole mechanism o. f the subject'sconstruction. The subject is seen as the founding 8UUIce ofmeanings - unproblematically standing outside an articulationin which It is, in fa.etJ defined. This view of the subject aJS found-ing source is phi losophica lly encapsulated in Descartes' cagiw:li think! t l ' iere: ioreI am -t h e I in simple CV idence t o it se lf p r ov id esa moment nf pure presence which can Jnuncl the enterprise ofanalysing the world, ~~cques, Lacsn , the Prench psychoanalyst,has read Fre UJdasrefo rmulat lng the Car tesian oO'gi to and des t roy~ing the subject as sourceand Ioundatton s- L~lcanrewIiH:s thec o g i u s , in the l ight ofPreud' s d iscoveries ,~S, I think where I a mnot and I arn where I d o n or think. We can understand thi8 forrnu-lationasahe indicating of the fundamental misunderstand ingjm.e.cofuUlis sanee ~wh ie h is involved in the succe $8U 1 u 5 c oflanguage ~or any other area cfthe symbolle which ]-5 similarlystrnc tu red] in which tnt; subiect is ccntinuelly ignored as beingcsught up in a.process of articnlstionto he taken as a fixed placefound ing the d iscourse. The unconscious. is th at e ffec r OH;lI1JollJ~lgewhich escapes the conscious subject inthe distance between theact of sigmiHc


10/14

T h eo re ti ca l e s say sarticulation and difk['C'r1ce -che movement of desire. [It is d1E~8emoments wh ich have been privileged hy Roland Barrhes and theTel Que1group over the last few years andwhich have beenthcorisedthrough lh", evalua tive concept of rcx t.] Over and abovethese U:lo.merHs of subversion, however, rherc are what Onemight cal l sttategies of subversion, Instead of a dominant dis-course which is transgressed at various crucial moments we canIind asystematic refusal of any sueh domi nant discourse _0 neofthe best examples of..cinema whichpracrices certain strategiesof subversion are the Iilms o f R o be rt o R o ss -d U ni _ In Ge.:r :many YearZsro, JO[ example/we can locate a multitude of ways in whichthe reading subject fiads himsel f withou t ;'I, position from whichthe HIm can he regarded. Pirstlv, and most impoHlIndy, thefact that the narrative is not prrvilegedIn any way with regardtothe characters ' discourses. The narrative does not produce for-us. the knowledge with which we can then judge the truth ofthose discourses. Rather than rhenarrative prcviding us withkno wl edge - it pmvid~su:s wit o VO lnou 8 Set rings . Just a s inBrecht the! fable ' serves si.m.ply as a procedure to produce thevarious gests . 80 in Rossellini the story simply provides a Iramc-work for various scenes which then constiture the picture ofGermany in year zCfCL ntroigh~ be remarkedthat this unimport-ance of narra t ive is even more strongly marked in FrauccscQGuillate di Dio J w here the device of int rodueing the variousEab] eaux w il hout narrative COnnec t ion is more evident. lIndeedrhe narrative 01 Ge.rm~.I1YYear Zero canbe S Ben as a device tointroduce the final! gest of Edmund's suicide -and in this ]tclosely resembles the first reel of Brecht's own Kuhle Wampe.Second 1YIRossellini's narra tive iot reduces rnanv dements whichare net in


11/14

Theoretical ,t ssaysin the emema (pgl~t]cu]< tr ]y in his histor ica l f ilms) - that presenceitself ]5 not questioned in any way" WI; an: not allowed , lny par-ricular position to read the m m but we arc allowed the positionof a reader - an unproblernanc vicwer > an eternally humannature working on thematerial provided by the camera.

A POSS] o le w ay of advanclng emRossellin is practice r there Hrtno obvious Iilms which have marked such anadvance al thoughs ome 01 Godard's ,early hims m1ght he so. considered] would beto develop the possibility ofarticulating conrradiction. Mu(;h inthe way that James Joyce in Ulysses lind Finnegang Wake Investi-gated! the contradictorv ways ofaJltic:nJating reality through aninv,est]g,u.ion o . fr h e : dH f e re n t f o rm s of language r On e c o ul d imaginea more radical strategy of subversicn than that practised byRossellini in whicb the possibilities of th e camerawould bebrought more clearly mto play. What would mark such a cinemaand indee d .~my c inema of subver s ion W01l1.ld be th ar Jearurequoted bVBrecht at the beginning of this section - the fact thati~ould be illat ease in the ChlS8 snuggle 1 :11W.IJ(YS ccncerned withan area of contradiction beyond (he necessity of (h e present.revclurion - the inelilnir.ulIole conrradicaions of the sexea, theeternal struggle between Desireend LIIW, herween artieulatinnandpes it ion,A ,os;sibl,ecat,eg~ry: therevoludona[')i' ~extSocislist emulation forms individuals in ndifferent way and produees...diUeren t indiv iclullh, Then there is the fun her qnes tion whethe

51


12/14

Theoretical essaysideology - the whole problem of the cultural reveluticn. Oneo f t he difficu H ie s o f u sing the s u b i ec r a s such" key te rm 1s th a tH is''14 ideological notion which is w:Uiy-ni1ly transformed intoa. descriptive scientific concept. The suh-iect - that whichunder-lies experience - ]$ a producrion, verv ]argeJy, of modernEu ropean rhil os.ophy from Descartes to its mos r sophis ticat edarriculaticn mthe philosophers of German Idealism,.The meinproblem facing anyone wishing to articulate a theoryO If mm wah aMarxist theory of ideology] s that by and brge no

sue h Marxist r heory exis t s. Marx never re aUy returne d to thesubject aIrel 1846~md none of the other great Marxist theor-eticians ~with the possible exception ofGm.msdl have found thetime to devote themselvesm the problem. In many ways thestarting point ofany such i nv e st ig a ti o n m u s r ht:~Louis Althusser'sessay on the topic cnnrled 'Ideology and ideological state ap-pautuses. ~NO!estowards all investig ...inn]' j 19711.In this essayAltlausser puts forward . 0 0 0 m l defends the thesis that ideology basno hi$wry. By this he does not mean that specific ideologies donot have a history involving both internal and external .bcw~sbut rbat the very form of ideology isalw..ysthe same. AJthusserargue s th a r the centra ind 1!lIW;lrying feature of ideology is thatit represents the imo:!gin.aryrelationship of individuals 10 t heirrealcondidons of existence. Ideology is alway:s ' imaginary' hecausethese representations place the subject in position in his society.In other words ideology always has ; : I . place for ,1 founding sourceoursidethe real arriculaciens.:Before . discussing this thesis directly there are twu preliminarypou~ts that must bemade, which while they donor touch directlyon the thesi S needto he borne in mind when discussing it. Thefirst, which I have a~re~~dyouched em , ]$ rhatthe subiect is anideological notion. Mon.::Qvr;rIit iii ,ln ~dcological notion which ist ied very closely to the rise of the bourgeoisie. It would. be out-side the scope of this ankle and beyond the author's competeucetotrace the evolu tion Oi l this [lotion with any precision. Suffice tosay rh3~Cartesian philosoplry INewnlnianph.ysics and the gram-mar. of Port-Royal a n invalve very preclsely that notion Of8unified subiecr of experienceand that the birth of this nOt]Olil in~he seventeenth century suggests v t ' : J : ' y importsnt Hub with thegmwing eceneene and polit ical domina-t]o]} of the Buropeanboor geoisie - the W(Uks of Locke provide Perhapstbe IlI@Sl51

Realism and. the cinemaobv iO \ .18 example of the need for this category of s uhject in thejU!:ldfication both of the new science and the new civil OHle r ,lDA ll this simply by W 1 1y ofa warning ofthe dithcul tl es ofdealingwit h the notion of the subject.S.econdly It Is necessary to realise what an .imponant breakAlrhusser's thesis marks with certain methods ofHege1iOlnisingMarx. Por Althnss.er i~ eoncerned ro attack thm view which,see lng icieologyas Jmerel y' ilhl.s,ory Iholds om the promise thatthe victor ious conclusion i to the class strugg le win resultin thearrival of the new and true ideology which will correspond to then;;11. This v iew me r e l y incamat'es the Hegelisn version tha t be iE1gan d ( ;O ] ]Sc lOUSnes s wi1J finally coincide with ina sim ple view ofthe end ofclass struggle. His the proletariat that wi ll realise thebeautiful dream of the real becoming rational and the rat t onalbecoming real, Whatev(;r reservations one may have aboutAlshusser'e thesis, it is important that ~heydo nOt involve a slip-ping back into such a Hegelian model w~thall the lack ofcentra-diction and snuggle that it impliesTo return, however, direetly loa Alrhusser's thesis. Itseemsaninevi table result of this thesisthat art can heallot ted no specif icfield of ac60n other~ han is effects on the content of ideology.As such art remains firmly within the reslm of ideology, beingsimply one ofa number of internal factors withinthe evolurlono(ideologies. This is, of course! quire comparible with classicalMarx] st posi tinns 00 an J. hut trad] tion OilMarxist thought ha~often felt lueH embarrassed hy this simple lumping of art into]deotogy - one o .f the most faffiousexamples ofsuch anembar-rassmcnt is Marx's own aw.an.pt to d~al with the problem ofGreek an. Th ere is, however, another way in wh ich this problemcan be .i1ppma.ched and it issuggested by Brecht's remark onthepesiion of the sp ectarer in the cinema {quoted at the beginningof this sec tion ~and by much o( Brecht' s theory and pr act ice. Hereone would have to deny both Althusser ' s [and Marx' S~thesis thatid(;;'Olo,gyhas na history and at the same nme delimit a special areaof activity which is nei ther that ofscience nor that of ideoiogy.This Olclivit'l might. he characterised by its .1l!bility


13/14

Theore t i l . c al e s s a ysth~u guarantees the necessary re-product ion of l~bour power. Itis the cinema's ahi1i~yto place the spectator in the position ofa unified subject that ensures the contradiction between hisworking activity which is productive andthe leisure activity inwhtch he is cons tan t ly p]aced as consumer. Althusser makes thevery important POifH in his essay that idelogyis not a questionof ldeas circula ting in pee ple is heads. butis ins cribed in certainmO!t(;~ia~ractices. The reactionary practice of the cinema is thatwhich involves this petrificancn O f the spectator in a position ofpseudo-dominance offered by the meta1.angnag; t:. Tbis meta-language, resolving


14/14

5 7

Theoret ical essaysA de:Hni~e ca~ego~y:: re "diO:Q.a:ry .u t

Realism a.nd the cinemasatirical poet Brich Kiisme:r ~1974~can be applied worn for wowU]0 Ltlcky .Man J

h is om metaphysicians o f tbe press, Q1[ rpanisans of 'iI:I't~w ho w nu ldlike m ore em ph as is o n If~we ' in IlMffilln p ro ce ss es . r or II]ong tlm e nowf~ue, whicl.l W(l~ OTIC; 11 ! sublime [Iution, has been nothing more t"h t ;: e \ \' a .! lin>eluJ.eJ in the~Ti;mdahm]S { ) i lBf(;~hl in~5~ueB4 ( ! i 1Ne;w . L ~ f [ R6Vil!w then I s ud ,a thud H : g ! J ~.alter the iJI~tlslsNtR-3 . SRI" 98, NUl p. 45.

4.SR[I.n5. SF. pp. 99-100, NUl:. p, 46.6 . , s ,Cp .2 . 5 .7 . . S c r e e n 13, 3, AlIltI1I1U1W72-8. SR p. UH, NUl p. ~ .7.9. SC P ' . ~ .173-9.W- T~l~ST.~ci~C 'loc~~i!l.!loJ the not ion of the subleet in rhe seventeenth centuryC~Il, 0:[ ceurse, be OOFlt~S~ed!.MtlmsscI ,hlinlldf, uses ffi!:lLnp~es rI'O!Il theChristian religion. ~!1d.hom lile Perrt.~teu~h wh i .d: t a~ e> ! :~ r d sw ~thhi~view 01th~ ca~egol)'.~~he suh~~t .ase~~rn.alwithin :ideol~gy. AllI ' i/o' ish to iIldkatei n t hi s paliS8;!!cis that ~:t .is not {J i b " 'tm l .~ tl a l t h e {~a t e&D: ryu f lite su bieN can b e

u5ed wieh the degree f~~,eQIf. IHdol!l1ce that Ahhus~~r assumes.1 1. S C p, 179 .

56

brecht cinema realism (1)

Documents