TheRealityofMotionPictures* w Di r kBaecker Realities Thepuzzleoftherealityofmovieshasexistedsincethepicturesbe-ganmoving.Fewthingsseemtocausemoretroublethant heat t empt tocapt uretherealityofsomethingwhichappears,staysforawhile, andt henvanishes.Ift hereisanyrealityinamotionpicture,then wherewasitbeforeandwherewillitbeafterwards?Thisarticledoes notclaimtohaveanyanswerstothisquestion.Instead,itshiftsthe problemtothelevelofcommuni cat i on,askinghowrealityiscommu-nicatedbypictureswhicharemoving.Itt hereforefollows t herecom-mendat i onofsecond-ordercyberneticstoapplyHeinzvonFoerster' s razorwheneverontologicalquestions nol ongerseemhelpful.1 Thera-zordemandsthatwerefrainfromaskingwhatsomet hi ngis, askingin-steadhowitis reproduced.Theapproachcanbecalledont ogenet i c.2 Thereality communi cat edby movies is a realityreproduced.Ther eare presumablylimitationsastowhichrealitycanbecommuni cat edby movies.Itis withtheselimitationsthatthisarticleis concerned.They arelimitationswhichproducearealityofacertaintype. Ther eisa"certainimpressionofreality"3inmovies,evenifevery-bodyknows,orlearns,thattheyarenot hi ngmorethanfiction.This impressionisreinforcedrat herthanj eopardi zedbyt hefactthatthe * ThankstoFionaGreenwoodforherEnglish-languageeditingofthemanuscript. 1SeeHeinzvonFoerster,Observing Systems,Seaside,Ca.1981. 2SeeHeinzvonFoerster,KybernEthik>Berlin1993. 3A pointemphasizedin ChristianMet/,ls.signifianlimaginaire: Psychoanalyseet cinema, Paris1977. MLN,111(1996):560-5771996 by The JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress M L N561 moviealsoreflectivelyshowsitsownrhythmoftemporalandspatial arrangementofimageswhenshowingt hemilieus,situations,stories, andcharactersit features.4 Indeed,oneofthemostdistinguishedfilm theories,thatofSiegfriedKracauer,takesthefilmcameratobeave-hicleofbot haregistrationandarevelationofrealitieshi t hert ooutof focus.5Thefilmcameradelvesintothemicrocosmandthemacro-cosm,intothecolor,structure,andsoundofthings,intotheimages ofmovementsthatwereimpossibletostudybefore,intotheobserva-tionofinvoluntaryhumangesturesthattell ot herthingsaboutpeopl e thantheir spokenwords do,andintot herealityof thehumanfacethat nobodyhadeverwatchedsoclosely.Moviesmakepeopl evisible,Bela ftalazsclaims.6 Theymovepeopl ear oundandletthemexperi encere-alityfromanglestheywereneverabletotakeupbefore.7 Yet theseandot hertheories offilmandt hecinemanever forgetthat theregistrationandrevelationofrealitymakeadi fferencetoreality. Itbecomesadi fferentreality,consistingofitselfplusitsregistration andrevelation.Indeed,t hereisampl eopport uni t yforthisrealityto changeintoanot heroneonce"it"hasbeenregisteredandrevealed. Thus,KracauerwatchedtheGermanmoviesofthetwentiesasakind ofperformativeactwhichnotonlydescribes,butalsocreatest hestate ofmindofapeopl e.8 Oneoft herealitieswhichthemoviesregisterandrevealis thereal-ity of communi cat i on.Itis arealityoutoffocus as well, orso oneisled torealizewhenwatchingamovie.Themovierevelsintryingtofind outhowhumanemot i on,whicht henovelandits correspondi ngpsy-chologieshadrelatedbacktoconsciousandunconscioust hought , translatesinto,andis evokedby,mer ebehavior,thustriggeringadif-ferent, behavioralandcognitive,psychology.9 Themovie rarely, if ever, distinguishesbetweenbehavior,communi cat i on,consciousness,and situation.Yetonecanobservehowmoviesemploythesedistinctions inordertocreatethepuzzles whichmotivatet hestory. Thei rbl urri ng 4SeeMauriceMerleau-Ponty,wLe Cinemaetlanouvellepsychologie,"inSens el non-sens, Paris1947,pp.85-106;Metz,Lesignifiantimaginaire. 5SigfriedKrakauer,Theory of Film: the Redemptionof Physical Reality, Oxford1960. 6BelaBala/.s, Dersichtbare Mensch: Kritiken undAufsalze,1922-26,inSchriftenzumF'ilm, vol.1, Munich1982. 7See ErwinPanofsky, "Style andMediumintheMotionPictures,"Critujuel/$(1947), pp.5-28. K SiegfriedKrakauer,From Caligari to Hitler: APsychologicalHistoryof the GermanFilm, Princeton1947. 9SeeMerleau-Ponty,"LeCinemaetlanouvellepsychologie." 562DIRKBAEC.KER oft hedi st i nct i onsinonesequenceofpi ct uresleadst hemt omakea distinctiont hatsolves t hepuzzleint henextsequence,which,however, blurssomeot herdi st i nct i on.Itis,i ndeed,aDangerousGame(1993, USA,dir.AbelFerrara)t hemoviesareplaying,neverqui t eknowing howsituationscreat edbylettingcommuni cat i onfadei nt oconscious-ness,ort heunconsci ousi nt obehavior,mi ghtbeunt angl ed.Butitis a gamethatatteststot herealityoft hemovies,evenifthisrealityspells t roubl efort herealityofcommuni cat i on. Thi sarticleproposest oanalyzet herel at i onshi pbet weenrealityand communi cat i oninor dert ofi ndouthowmoviesbot hcreat eanim-pressionofrealityandconveyt hei rowndoi ngso.Itisasociological articleint hatitfocusesoncommuni cat i on.Thatpresupposesdraw-ingt hedistinctionofcommuni cat i on,which,ofcourse,isrelatedt o t hequest i ont hearticleis asking.Ifonedoesn' tdrawthisdistinction, oneendsupdescri bi ngt hemoviesdifferently, f orinstanceas"lifeex-pressinglife,(...)exper i enceexpressi ngexperi ence. "1 0However,that r ender sitdi ffi cul tt oaddresst hequest i onofreality,whichisthepur-poseoft hefollowingconsi derat i ons. My startingpoi ntis t hedistinctionbet weenstagingcommuni cat i on andcommuni cat i ng.Bothar emeanttohappenin,andcreat e,areal-ity.Realityist husadomai nofcommuni cat i on.Realityisbot hpro-ducedandsoughtbycommuni cat i on.Realityisnott heout si deof communi cat i on,t ur ni nganycommuni cat i onei t heri nt oarepresen-tationofitori nt ofictionorsi mul at i on.Realityist heinsideofcom-muni cat i on,whicht ransformsrealityi nt ot hesymbolici magi naryof itself,anor deralwaysambi val entwithregardst ot hedistinctionbe-tweenstagingcommuni cat i onandcommuni cat i ng.Anyrealitywhich is nott hei nsi deofcommuni cat i ont ur nsouttobepr oducedby acom-muni cat i ont hi nki ngitsownot her. Thedistinctionbetweenstaginganddoi ngisi nt r oducedbycom-muni cat i oni nt oarealityt hatist herebypr oduced.Ther eis noreality if onecannotaskaboutt her ebei ngone.Realityis anchor edinitsown ambivalence.Whatcommuni cat i oncallsrealityresultsf r omt heinvis-ibilizationoft heparadoxofnotknowingwhet hertocallt hedistinc-tionbet weenrealityandunreal i t yarealoranunr ealone.Communi -cationunfol dsthis paradox,revealingapuzzlewhichhasto betackled notonceandf orall,butrepeat edl yandconstantly.Ther eisnosolu-tiontot heparadox,onlydi f f er entwayst oputittowork.Communi -10 See VivianSobchack,The Address of the Eye: A Phenomenology of Film Experience, Prince-ton1992. M L N563 cationis oneoftheseways.It entersintothedistinctionbetweenreal andunrealas theagent,soto speak,whichdraws the distinctioninthe firstplace.Nomatterhowonedecidesthequestionofrealityorun-reality withrespecttoanymatterwhatsoever,it willalwaysbethereal-ity ofcommunicationthatis reproducedbyraisingthequestion. We needto lookmoreclosely at communicationinorderto seehow thiscomesabout.Following JurgenRueschandGregoryBateson,we takecommunicationtobetheoccurrenceoferrorcorrection.11Er-ror correctionpresupposesselectivity, sincethereare no errors ifthere isnoobservationofarangeofotherpossibleselectionsthatcanbe takenas theright ones,that is, as theright onesuntilfurther errorcor-rectionoccurs.Errorcorrectionalsopresupposesaconnectionbe-tweentheerrorcommittedandtheerrorcorrected,sothatthecor-rectioncanbe fed backintotheprocesscommittingtheerrors.Finally, allthis presupposesmutualperceptionbetweenanagentdoi ngsome-thingandanotheroneobservinghimorher.Indeed,withoutmutual perception,error observationcannotturninto error correction.With-outerror correction,there wouldbenoconnectionbetweentheevent ofobservingtheerrorandthatofreceivingthecorrection.Andwith-outsucha connection,onewouldnotbeabletodiscovertheselectiv-ity ofanyoneevent. Thus,anyrealityproducedby communicationis a selectionsubject toerrorcorrection,arealityinsuspense.Thereisnowayoutofthis. Thereareonlytypesofcommunicationthatputofftheerrorcorrec-tionfacilitiesofcommunicationbydevelopingandofferingreassur-ancesofallkinds,whichatsomepointandbysomeobserversare takentobetheoriginalsituationofcommunication.Andthereare stories whicharetoldto showhowerror correctioneventuallyleadsto theincreaseofmutualunderstanding.Butdelayingerrorcorrection isaparasiticpossibilityofcommunicationbasedonthepossibilityof errorcorrectionexistinginthefirstplace.Andtellingstoriesis away ofencouragingtheacceptanceoferrorcorrection,andevenofpro-vidingfor anappropriatesensitivitytohandleitsirritation.Yet allthis onlyconfirmsthatitisthepossibilityoferrorcorrectionwhichcom-municationsubstitutesfortheparadoxofreality. Pleasenotethatthecommunicationtheoryof JurgenRueschand GregoryBateson,whichrelinkedpsychiatricmethodstothe"social matrix"theyareembeddedin,isatheorywithoutpreconceived'hu-11JurgenRueschandGregoryBateson,Communication:The Social Matrixof Psychiatry, New'York1987. 564DIRKBAECKER man is tic'presuppositions.Itisnotonlyhumanbeingsthatmayprove abletocommuni cateif thecriterionis errorcorrectionbasedon,and bringingforth,selectivity,mutualperception,andconnecti on.In-deed,itisamootpointwhetherhumanbeingsareabletocommuni -cateatall.NiklasLuhmannbelievesthatonlysocialsystemsareable todoso,sinceit is socialsystems whichprovidefor mutualperception, selectivity,andconnect i on.1 2This articlewillnotpursuethatquestion. It relies,instead,onerrorcorrection. Theinterestingthingaboutmoviesisthattheydonotl endthem-selveseasilytoerrorcorrection.RueschandBatesongiveanaccount oftwoinstancesofcommuni cati onwherethereappearstobenoer-rorcorrection,oronlyadelayedone,whichisalmostunnoticeable anddifficult totraceinits generaleffects,letal oneinits effects onthe communi cati onitself. Thefirstinstancethey call"intrapersonalor fan-tasycommuni cati on, "thesecondone"masscommuni cati on. "Inin-trapersonalcommuni cati on,thatis,inanindividualdealingwithhis orher"einsamenSeel enl eben, "13withhisorherperceptionsasthey areexperi encedbyhimorher,"toperceivethatonemisinterprets one' sownmessagesisextremelydifficult,ifnotimpossible,andcor-rectionrarely,ifever,occurs." Andinmasscommuni cati on,whereit isdifficulttodistinguishsenderandreceiverduetotheiranonymity, andthustodel i neateasystemofcommuni cati onwhichnevertheless isfeltwithcertaintytobethere,"theindividualisnotabletoobserve theeffects ofhis ownmessagesuponothers,norcanhecommuni cate hispersonalreactionstoamessageoriginatingfromcommittees,or-ganizations,orinstitutions[ormovies,forthatmatter;D.B.].Cause andeffect becomeblurred,correctionandself-correctionofmessages becomedelayedintimeandremovedinspace;if correctionfinallyoc-curs,it oftenisnol ongerappropriate."14 Thecommuni cati onofmoviesintheci nemaisthusnocommuni -cationatall,orrathera delayedone,sincetheyhavetoawaittheirer-rorcorrectioninordertoturnintocommuni cati on.Yet, whilenotbe-ingcommuni cati onbutawaitingcommuni cati on,theyproducetheir 'impressionofreality.'Indeed,theydrawfortheireffects ofrealityon acommuni cati onthatdelays,orbrackets,itself.Theyfictionalizethe 112 NiklasLuhmann,Social Systems,trans. JohnBednarz,Jr., Stanford1995. 13 ThistermistakenfromEdmundHusserl,Logische Untersuchungen: Untersuchungen zur Phanomenologie undTheorie der Erkenntis,inHusserliana, vol. XIX/ 1, TheHague1984. 14Bothcitationsinthis paragraphfromRueschandBateson,Communication, pp.15-16. M L N565 realityandthusdispelthequestionoftheunreal.Ent ercommuni ca-tion,orer r orcorrection,andtheimpressionofrealitydissolvesinto thecommuni cat i onofreality. Systems Movies addressperceptionby masscommuni cat i on.Theyarelocated, sotospeak,atthei nt erfaceoftwohighlycomplexsystems.Onesys-temis thesystemofperception,whichis thepsychicsystemofpeople, ortheirembodi edconsciousness.15Theot heristhesystemofmass communications,asystemthatreliesontechnologiesofcommuni ca-tionthatseparatesenderandreceiverandconstantlyproduceinfor-mationofallsorts,thatis, views ofrealities.10Bothsystems,foratime being,operat efree oferrorcorrection.Butbot hsystemsnevertheless usetheirhistoryofcouplingstoerror-correctingcommuni cat i onfor thedevel opmentoffunctionalequivalentsofinternalerrorcorrec-tion.Psychicsystemslearntoreducerealitytoimpressionsofit,that is, simultaneouslytoincludethemselvesin,andto excludethemselves from,theoperat i onofpercept i on.17Thesystemofmasscommuni ca-tionslearnstoreducetherealityitisconveyingtoopi ni onsaboutit, thatis,tostatementswhichdoubttheirownt rut h.1 8Inbot hcases, however,thesefunctionalequivalentsrelyonsecond-orderobserva-tion.Itis onlyinreflectionthatapsychicsystemis abletodistinguish betweendelusionandt rut h.Andit is onlyin observingeachot herthat masscommuni cat orsrealizethattheirconvictionsareopinions.Both typesof systemoperat eblindly, j ustproduci ngandreproduci ngthem-selves.Itisonlybysecond-orderobservation,which,aft ertheyhave gonet hroughthemirror-stage,19rei nt roducesthedistinctionbetween thesystemandits envi ronmentintothesystem,thattheygaininsight intotheirblindness. Bothsystemsoscillatebetweenthereality'theyperceiveormass-15SeeFrancisco J.Varela,EvanThompson,andEleonorRosch,The EmbodiedMind, Cambridge1991. 16SeeNiklasLuhmann,DieRealitatderMassenmedien,Opladen1995(Nordrhein-VVesdalische AkademiederWissenschaften. VortrageG333.). 17SeeMauriceMerleau-Ponty,Le Primal de la percefttion el ses consequences philosphiques, Grenoble1989. SeeDirkBaecker,"Os/.illierendeOffentlichkeit," inRudolfMaresch,ed.,Medien undOffentlichkeit, Munich1995. 19See JacquesLacan,wLeStadedumirourcommeformat eurdelafonctionduJe, " inEcrits,Paris1966, pp.89-97. 566DIRKBAEC.KER communi cat e,ont heonehand,andt herealizationt hattheyar edeal-ingini mpressi onsofitandopi ni onsaboutit,ont heot her.Bothsys-temshavetooper at eont hebasisoftheseoscillationsbet weenafirst-or derobservat i ont hatcannothel pbutacceptrealityasitisanda second-orderobservat i ont hatr ei nt r oduceser r orcorrect i on.Inor der toreconci l et hecont radi ct orydemandsoffirst-orderandsecond-or derobservation,bot hsystemsdevelopt hecapabilitiyofshort-term memory,thatis, ofvirtuousforget t i ngandgener ousdiscrediting.That enabl est hemtosticktoanyrealitytheyareactuallyreceivingorsend-ing,andyettobepreparedfort henextonedemandi ngt hei rat t ent i on. Thecommuni cat i onofmoviesreliesonsecond-orderobservat i on i nt er f er i ng withfirst-orderobservat i on.Itis t hecommuni cat i onofim-pressionsof, andopi ni onsabout ,realitiest hatare,f ort hetimebei ng, accept edatfacevalue.Actually,itist hecommuni cat i onofareality thatseemstobebareofcommuni cat i on,bei ngamass-communi cat ed pi ct ureoft heworld,ont heonehand,andaperceivedpi ct ureoft he worldont heot her.Itis acommuni cat i onthatletscommuni cat i onre-cedei nt ot hebackgr oundsot hatitf unct i onssimplyast hevehicleof t heregistrationandrevelationofreality.Anydoubtarisingf r omsec-ond- or derobservat i onmeet switht heself-evidenceofmass-commu-ni cat edper cept i onswhichdonotl endthemselvestocriticism.One hastor ei nt r oducet hedistinctionofcommuni cat i onintot hepi ct ure inor dert obeabletoseeit. Theresultofthis second-orderobservat i onofimpressionsandopin-ionsi nt er f er i ng witht hefirst-orderobservat i onofrealitiesis arichhis-toryofmoviecreat i ont hattakesi nt oaccountt hehistories oft hestruc-turalcoupl i ngstocommuni cat i onofbot hpercept i onandmass communi cat i on.Anymovieatagivenpoi ntintimeist hepr oductof twohistories,aseriesofper cept i onsbot hdel udedandaf f i r med,and aseriesofmasscommuni cat i onsbot hfailedandsuccessful.Having r unt hr ought hei rhistory(orrat her:"drift"),nei t herpsychicsystems nort hesystemofmasscommuni cat i onsar epr epar edtobelieveand acceptjustanyt hi ng,buttheyar epr epar edtobepr epar edtobelieve andacceptnevertheless.Havingbeeni mpressedbyt hecoolact i ngof Humphr eyBogartinCasablanca(1942,USA,dir.MichaelCurtiz),you neverthelessbelieveWoodyAllentryinginvaintofollowBogart ' sad-viceinPlayItAgain,Sam(1972,USA,dir.WoodyAllen).Youobserve howper cept i onsthattranslatei nt obehavi ordeepl ybot ht rustand mistrustt hemass-communi cat edrealitytheyexperi ence,andyetyou arepr epar edt ogoaheadwithyourownexper i encesreceivedbymass communi cat i ons,yourdisbeliefinexperi encesi ncl uded. MLN567 Any movie atany givenpointintimeis a documentof whatt hedrifts ofpsychicsystemsandthesystemofmasscommuni cat i onsintheir structuralcouplingsarepreparedtobelieveandaccept.Anymovieat anygivenpointintimewilltakeintoaccountwhatpictureswillnotbe believedandacceptedanymore.Itwillevenshowt hemandmark themas quot at i onsofpicturesnobodyanyl ongerbelieves. Themovie, thus,eitherreinforcest hebeliefin,andacceptanceof,alltheot her picturesitisshowingorcontaminatesallt heot herpicturesbydis-believingoneofthem.Thereisalongtraditionofmovieswhichin-dulgethemselvesinparodyingthewestern,t hethriller,thescience-fictionfilmandt hehor r orfilmandyetsomehowrei nforcethebelief inpicturesnobodybelievesin. Andt hereis ashort ertraditionofRe-constructive'movies whichneverquitegetridofthe very picturesthey condemnasmake-believe.Onceagain,ent ert ai nmentmoviesandart filmswilloptfordi fferentstrategies,thef or merreinforcingbeliefby acceptingdisbelief,thelattercont ami nat i ngallthepicturesbytaking t heproblemofdisbeliefseriously,thatis,asanindicationof' lostre-ality' or even' referenceloss.'But nei t herget ridof t hepictures.Maybe thatis a consequenceofpictures'incapabilityto negat e.20EvenDerek Jar man' sBlue(1993,GreatBritain)doesnotovercomethisstructural limitation.Rather,itstagesit. Shots Somehow,botht heperceptualsystemandthesystemofmasscom-municationsmanageto getalongwithafirst-orderobservationfreeof errorcorrection,butconstantlydisturbedby error-correctingsecond-orderobservation.Theyt urnoutward,sotospeak,anddelegatethe responsibilityforrealitytoaworldtheyexperi ence,butdonotact upon.Theyt urntheirambivalence,theirbeingcompelledbot htobe-lieveandtodisbelieve,intoast at ementnotaboutthemselves,but aboutaworldwhichis constantlychanging.Theyt hust urntheirown problemofnotbeingabletorelyoninstanterrorcorrectionintoa t echni queforobservingachangi ngworld.Whatcanbebelievedto-day,cannotanylongerbebelievedtomorrow,notbecausethereality' wasinvented,butbecauseitchanged.Thisdelegationofresponsibil-ityproducesarealitythatisbothdurabl e(onecanbelieveinit)and constandychangi ng(onehastowatchout ).Themorefirst-orderob-SeeBill Nichols,"Style, Grammar,andtheMovies," inBill Nichols,ed.,Moviesand Methods:AnAnthology,Berkeley1976, pp.607-28. 568DIRKBAEC.KER servationsofthis reality, whicharccorrigibleonly by second-orderob-servationsactuallyoccur,t hefastert heworldchanges.Andt hefaster t heworldchanges,t hemor echancest herearetoselectarealityone can,for j ustamoment ,believein. Moviesandtelevisionarethemostperfectexpressionofareality t ransformedi nt oits ownexperi ence,andt ransformedbyexperi ences whichhavetogivewaytonewexperiences.Motionpicturessetloose pictureafterpicture,alloft hem justshowingwhatt hereis andthen giving waytothenextpicture.Thepicturesdonotcorrecteachother, they justfolloweachother. Actorsinmoviesareoft enselectedinaccordancewiththeirability toplaytheirownacting as a way of experi enci ngtheworldwithoutact-ing uponit. Theanecdot eof RobertMitchum,whomarkedallhisown appearancesinhis scriptwiththeletters"n.a.r.," whichmeans"noac-tionrequi red, "nicelyexemplifiesthisrequi rement .Butthinkof BusterKeatonactingtheobserverinThe Namgator(1924,USA,dirs. BusterKeatonandDonaldCrisp)orBobHoskinsinMori a Lisa(1986, GreatBritain,dir.Neil Jor dan)and JoeMantegnainHomicide(1990, USA, dir. DavidMamet)actingdi fferent ways of slowly adapt i ngtothe worldtheytrytofigureoutwhilehavingtoactinit,orMichelPiccoli inlineetrange affaire(1981,France,dir.PierreGranier-Deferre)stag-ingt hepuzzleoftheexperi enceofaworldot hersarecompel l edto adaptto,orHarveyKeitelinThe Piano(1993,NewZealand,dir. Jane Campi on)actingtheexperi enceofanaboriginalworld:theyexhibit variousways ofavoidingactingupontheworldinor dertolettheau-di enceexperi encet heexperi enceoft heworld. Memoriesoffilmsconsistmorethananythingelseoft hefaces showntoexpressexperiences.Togive justacasuallist,thinkofMar-lonBrandoinApocalypse Now(1979,USA,dir.FrancisFordCoppola), ofGunt erLamprechtinBerlinAlexanderplatz(1980,Germany,dir. RainerWernerFassbinder),ofRobertdeNiroinTaxiDriver(1976, USA,dir.MartinScorsese),ofHarveyKeitelinBadLieutenant(1992, USA,dir.AbelFerrara),ofGiuliettaMasinaandAnthonyQui nnin LaStrada(1954,Italy,dir.FedericoFellini),ofMarcelloMastroianni in81/2(1963,Italy, dir.FedericoFellini),ofLaurenBacallinTheBig Sleep(1946,USA,dir.HowardHawks)andJeanSeberginABout deSouffle(1959,France,dir.Jean-LucGodard),ofGertFrobein Coldfinger{1964,GreatBritain,dir.Guy Hami l t on),of WalterMatthau and JackLemmoninBuddy,Buddy(1981,USA,dir.BillyWilder),of AleksandrKaidanovskyinStalker(1982,USSR,dir. AndrejTarkovsky), ofHenryFondainTheWrong Man(1967,USA, dir. AlfredHitchcock), MLN569 of JamesStewartinVertigo(1958,USA,dir. AlfredHitchcock)andAn-thonyPerkinsinPsycho (1960,USA,dir.AlfredHitchcock),ofJeanne MoreauandOskarWerneri n Juleset Jim(1962,France,dir.Fran go is Truffaut ), of AnthonyHopki nsinThe Silence of Lambs(1991,USA,dir. Jonat hanDemme) ,of J ohnNancein Eraserhead (1977,USA, dir.David Lynch)andKyleMacLachlaninTwinPeaks(1989-1991,USA,dir. DavidLynch),of JohnWayneinElDorado(1976,USA,dir.Howard Hawks),oftheboyEdmundMoschkeinGermania,AnnoZero(1949, Italy,dir.Robert oRosselini)andSylvesterStalloneinRockyA7(1985, USA,dir.SylvesterStallone),ofE.T.inE.T(1982,USA,dir.Steven Spielberg),andofallot hersyoumaybeabletorecallandyouendup recallingallrealitiesmovies wereeverabletobringfort h.It' s allinthe faces.Orrather,itisallincertainshotsofcertainfacesincertain movies. Justtakeoneoftheseencyclopediasof ci nemalikeTheMotion PictureGuide andbrowset hroughthestills. Theseexampl esshow,bytheway,howi mport antt hehumanfaceis whentheshotswitchesbackandforthfromstagingactiontostaging experience.Thehumanface acts likethereportofthepreviousscene andthecommandofthenextone,21neverquiteunderst andi ngwhat it reportsorknowingwhatit commands.Ther eis nobetterway tot urn asituationintoits experi encethanto shootaface experi enci ngit.Re-memberagainthefaces ofIngridBergmanandHumphr eyBogartin Casablanca beinglookedat bytheface of Woody Alleninthefirsttakes ofPlay It Again,Sam,whichfeatures Allensittinginaci nemawatching thelasttakesofCasablanca.If onlyinordertoshoott hehumanface, movieswouldhaveinventedpeople,haditnotbeent heot herway around.Actually,afterhavingbeeninventedbypeople,t hemovies wentontore-inventpeople.Thehumanfaceis bot hreceptiveandin-scrutablebot hforcommuni cat i onandforconsciousness.Andthatis exactlywhatthemoviesneed,andshow. Thehumanfaceislikeaformwhicht urnsintoitsownmedi um, thereby enactingtheplasticity of bot hfigureandsituation.Themovies revivetheanci entscienceorartofphysiognomy,whichbot husedand testedthebeliefincorrespondencesbetweenfacialfeatures andtypes ofcharacterandbehavior.Rememberthemout hmovementsJack NicholsoninventedinordertoplaytheimbecilemobsterinPrizzi's Honor(1985,USA,dir. J ohnHust on)?Thesemovement sinawayin-t erferedwiththerealityofthemovieinordertoestablishits realityall 21InthetermsofRueschandBateson,Communications,pp.179-80. 570DIRKBAEC.KER t hemor efirmly.AlfredHi t chockr emar ksont hehuma nfaceast he medi alf or mi nt owhicht hemoviest r ansf or mit whenhisfilmNorthby Northwest(1959,USA)showst heunmovi ngfaces oft he Ameri canPres-i dent satMountRushmor e.Iftheseunmovi ngfacesareonlyform, theyaret ur nedi nt oamedi umbybecomi ngt hestageofadr amaof escape,rescue,andrecogni t i on. Ther eis noexper i encewhichdoesnotexhi bi tactiveel ement s.Ex-per i encereliesondistinctionsdrawnbyt heactorslivingitandt heau-di encewat chi ngit. Theymaybedistinctionswhichlackdistinction,so t ospeak,astheyoper at et hr oughcont rast ,association,suppressi on, andemphasi s,bot htacitandarticulate,buttheyaredistinctionsnev-ertheless.Moviesmaytryt oplaydownt hemat t erofdistinctionsby choosi ngl ongtakest hatexploitt hespectators*abilityt oprocessa wealthofdi f f er entdistinctionssi mul t aneousl ywi t houtnecessarilyac-count i ngf oreachoneoft hemseparately.Butt hatagainprofi t sf r om first-orderobservat i onandrisks,f ur t her mor e,allowingt hechoosi ng oft heshott obecomesoobvioust hatt heshotitselfsuddenl ymakes allt hedi f f er enceandt herealityoft hepi ct urevanishes.Itispossible foraspect at ortoenj oyt hefactt hatt hepi ct urewhichwaschosenbe-comessoobtrusiveandt odelvei nt oaselectivityt hatheorsheac-knowl edgesashisorherownandnevert hel essdel egat estot hemovie takingchar geofit.Butt hatactuallyshowswhatt hemovieis.The movieis asequenceofdistinctionsbei ngmade.Allitstakesandshots ofsituations,actions,andscenesarechosen,andworkby virtueofbe-i ngchosen. Thefactt hatmovingpi ct uresareselectedparadoxicallymakest he impressionofrealityallt hemor econvi nci ng.Thecutt hatpr oduces t hesequenceoftakesinamoviedoesnotl enditselftot hedest ruct i on oft hei mpressi onofreality,butinsteadpr oducesashiftofthisim-pressiont ot heleveloft herel at i onshi pofeachtaketot henextone andtot herel at i onshi psofalloft hetakestoeachot her .2 2Experienc-ingt hecut ,oneseesadistinctionworki ngandyetmustrelyonthe indicationitprovidesinor dertomoni t orwhatitisdoi ng.Thatis t rue,itseems,bot hf ort hepeopl emaki ngandfort hosewatchingthe film.Her et hedistinctionoft hecutbei ngaccompl i shedisasobt ru-siveast hecutt hatfails t oappear.Thecutwhichis notmadepr oduces t heexper i enceofarealitybei ngselectedexplicitly,whereast hecut thattakesplacedoesnotleavetimetot hi nkaboutit,butredirects 2 2See Juri j Lot mann,Semiotics of Cinema, trans.MarkE. Suino, AnnArbor1976. M L N571 attentiontothenext"attraction,"23thenextpicture,thenextindi-cation,whichis theonlyclueforunderst andi ngthecut.Thecutdoes notfunct i onbycancellingtherealityoftheshotbefore,butbyadd-ingsomemorereality,somedi fferentaspect,toit.Byconstantly addi ngaspects,changi ngperspectives,andmovingthespectator around,it draws thespectatorintotheexperi enceof a reality heorshe knowstobefiction,yetatanygivenmomentis unabl etodisregardas reality. Bycuttingthepictures,themoviereinforcesitscapacitytoconvey theimpressionofreality.Acutworkssoastomakeitseemasifthe movieadmitsthatit selectivelymakesuprealityand,t herefore,agrees toshowinthenextshotwhatthepreviousonefailedtoshow.There-sultofthis,however,isthattherealitytobeexperi encedinamovie doesnotresidein any of its shots,butinthefact oftheshots giving way to ot hershots. Theexperienceof reality' consists inthepicturesaddi ng toarealitythatnosinglepictureis actuallyabletoshow. Andi ndeed,whetherent ert ai nmentmoviesareaddi ngpicturesto, orartfilmssubtractingt hemfrom,eachot hermakesnodi fference withrespecttotheemergenceofanunportrayableexperi enceofre-ality.Itonlymakesadi fferencewithrespecttoarealitybeingexperi-encedaseitherfullorempty.DirectorslikeAlexanderKJugewishto rei nt roducetheblackstripswhichseparatethepicturesonthefilm into oneormorepicturesinthefilm(andusetitle links to doso).That is theirway oftryingto showhowtherealityofthemoviecomesabout. Butblackstripstoohaveto givewaytopictures,andthatis wherethe impressionofrealityhasitsbasis. Thedirectorwhoshowsthatitishe orshewhoisshowingthepicturesj ustaddsanot herdimensionof reality, whichinthis caseis thereality ofhis orherownshootingofthe film.Heorsheadmitsthatheorsheisnotaspreparedtobelievein hisorhermovieastheaudi enceispreparedtodo.Butthatisinfor-mationwhichonlyhas valuefor anintellectualaudience.Noot herau-diencesbelieveintherealityofmoviesanyway. Withrespecttot herealityofmoviesconsistinginshotsgivingway tof ur t hershots,thequestionofwhet herthesequenceofshotscon-firmsordisprovesautomatismsofhumanbehaviorseemsto beofsec-ondaryimportance.Thecinemais akindoflaboratoryofpsychicand societalautomatismswithrespecttobot htherevelationandthere-2 5SergeiEisenstein, Film Form: Essays in FilmTheory, ed.andtrans. Jayl.cyda,I-ondon 1949. 572DIRKBAEC.KER f ut i ngoftheseaut omat i sms.24Butthatonlyshowst hatt hesequenc-ingoft hepi ct uresbymeansoft hecutworkst hr ought hebi furcat i on betweencont i nui ngacertaint hr eadoft heprevi ouspi ct ure,orhead-ingsomewhereelse.Oneoft hemosti nt erest i ngquest i onsmovies raiseiswhet hert her eisanaut omat i smintheprocessi ngofbifurca-tionsthatmi ghtbet hepr econdi t i onofallot heraut omat i sms.Gilles Deleuzearguest hatt her eis apsychomechani calaut omat i smconsist-ingint heabilitytolinkt heopticalandt heacousticalel ement ssepa-ratedbyt hemovies.25Andt hatonceagaindemonst r at esthatt her eis nowayt odestroyt heeffect s ofrealityinamovie. Kracauertellsasomewhatdi f f er entstory.26Forhi m,t hemovieisa combi nat i onofadet er mi nat esequenci ngoft hepi ct uresontheone hand,andanopen,i ndet er mi nat est r uct ur eofeachpi ct ureont he ot her.Amoviethatmeet st her equi r ement sofci nemat ogr aphymay welltellar at hertightstory,t husconveyingt heimpressionofanun-avoidablefate;yetanyoft heepi sodesoft hemoviehastobeperme-ablewithrespecttoa s ur r oundi ngworld. Jean-LucGodar d,inhisHis-toids)duCinema(1988,France),givesani nt erest i ngversionofthis ideaofacombi nat i onofclosureandopennesswhenheshowsthat event heexpensivehappy-endmoviesoft heforties coul dnotavoidbe-ingshownt oget herwithcheapnewsreelclipsi nt owhich,slowlybut unceasingly,t herealityofwarandconcent r at i oncampsseeped. Ingeneral ,ift hemovieistofulfillitsowncondi t i ons,t hent hese-lectionof certainshotshasto beopenwithrespecttot hedomai nthese shotsareselectedf r ominor dertoshowt hepossibilityofot herselec-tions.Itdependsont hefilmgenr ehowlooselyortightlyt herela-t i onshi pbet weent heselectedshotsandt hedomai ntheyareselected f r omis st r uct ur ed.A westerngives muchmor espace,andi ndeedcom-plies withits ownmessageby givingmor espaceforpossibleselections, t hanathriller,which,bydrivingevenitspi ct uresi nt oacorner,shows how' ani nnocentgetsent angl edinanadvent ur e. '2 7Yetitist hebi-furcat i onbet weent heabilityt ochooseandt hediscoveryofhaving chosenalreadywhi chist hestuffallmoviesconsistof.Inpr oduci ng andr epr oduci ngthis bi furcat i on,t hemoviepr oducesandr epr oduces bot ht hemeani ngandt hesuspenset hatlinkittoits audi ence.Alexan-2 4SeeWalterBenjamin,"DasKunstwerkimZeitalterseinerReproduzierbarkeit," inCesammelte Schriften, vol.1,2,Frankfurta.M.1974,pp.471-508;Lotmann,Semioticsof Cinema. 2 5GillesDeleuze,Cinema2: L'image-temps,Paris1985. 26SiegfriedKracauer,Theory of Film, 2 7SeeFrancoisTruffaut,LeCinema selon Hitchcock, Paris1966. M L N573 derKlugehasanot herversionofthesameideawhenhearguesthat ' t heprecisionofroughideas'characterizesbothmoviesandthehu-mancondi t i on.28Theadvantageofroughideasist hattheyafford spacefort heself-regulatinginventivenessofbot hthemovieandthe spectator. Fiction Massent ert ai nmentmediaproducedouble-sidedobjectsthatletthe spectatorcrossfromthesideofrealitytothesideoffiction.29Ahu-manface is suchanobject. Thespectatorlooksatit, it seemsreal,and, thankstomake-up,itis.Whilelookingatit,thespectatorentersa realmoffictiontowhichchangesintherealface aretobeattributed. Emotions,andthelackofthem,showinguponafacearethereal tracesofthefictionalstorythefaceinthemovieisshownliving t hrough. Therearedi fferentlevels onwhichthedouble-sidednessofobjects, forinstanceahumanface, is handl ed.Indeed,thefirstmaybetheat-tributionoftheobjecttotherealmofent er t ai nment .3 0As soonasa spectatoris shownanobjectthathastwosides,andthatbothchanges sidesandallowshimtochangesides,heknowsthatheistobeenter-tainedandthatitisuptohimwhet herhe(1)letshimselfbedrawn intothefictionheis beingshown,or(2)enjoys theswitchingbackand fort hbetweenrealityandfiction,knowingthatheis sittinginhischair quitecomfortably,watchingafilm,or(3)triesto observehowtheob-jectsofthefilmaremade,thatis,howtheactorsplaytheirfacesand howeveryot herobjectappearsrealwhileinvitingfiction.Attributing theobjectshowntotherealmofent er t ai nmentprovidesanorienta-tionalframeforlayaswellasexpertobservations.Onecaneven assumethatitprovidesaplaygroundofprofessionalismwherefilm-makersandaudi encemeetandenjoy whattheycandotoeachother, thatis,tothemselves.' Lookathowtheshotiscut,'' Lookatmyface twistingslightly,'' LookathowIampreparedtoletmyselfbedrawn intowhatIamshown,'film-maker,actor,andspectatorallseemto keeptellingeachother. 2 8AlexanderKluge,"DeutschesKino,"inAlexanderKluge,ed.,Bestandsaujnahme: Utopie Film.ZwanzigJahre neuer deutscher Film/Mitte1983,Frankfurta.M.1983,pp.141-94. 29NiklasI. uhmann,Die Realitiit der Massenmedien,p.41. 30Ibid. 574DIRKBAEC.KER Double-sidedobjectst husprovi def orafirstlevelofstagingreality t hatdeci desnot hi ngot hert hant hequest i onofhowt heswitchbe-tweenrealityandfictionismade.Thatimplies,however,thatt hereis noonce-and-for-allcutbetweenrealityandfiction,butarat herintri-catel i nki ngoft hemwhichchecks,sot ospeak,foraseparat i onthatis constantlyshi ft i ngyetnottobedi scarded.Stories,pictures,sounds, andcastallhavet ot readt henarrowlinebet weenafictiont hattells somet hi ngaboutreality,andarealityt hatopensaspaceforfiction.It seemscorrectt ocall whathappensont hatline"i magi nat i on, "because i magi nat i onalways knowst hepl acewher eitis dr eami ngofsomet hi ng t hathasnoplace.Ther eisnorealityt hatcannotbemount edint he moviesas l ongasitacceptsel ement soffiction.Andt her eis nofiction thatcannotbei nsert edi nt oamovieasl ongas ittells aboutsomet hi ng t akenf orreal,whet heritbet heconquestoft hewildwest,t hepossi-bilityofahappyend,ort hei ncant at i onsoft heunconsci ous. Hownar r owt helinebet weenfictionandreality actuallyis,isshown byt heconst rai nt sofci nemat i cgenr e.Thewestern,t hedrama,t he comedy,t hehor r orfilm,t hethriller,t hepor nfilm,t headvent ure, and,ofcourse,t heavant-gardefilmar ebundl esofconvent i onslink-ingaudi enceandci nemat oget herinanagr eementaboutwhichreal-itiesmaybeshownbywhichel ement soffiction.31Theseconvent i ons are,however,sopowerfulthattheyinstallthemselvesatt heveryplace wher erealitiesar eshownto give waytofiction,andvice versa. Theyes-tablishexpect at i ons,andtheyplaywithcertainviolationsoft heex-pect at i onstheyhaveest abl i shed,32butint hel ongr untheybecome t radi t i onsofthemselves,t herebyprovi di ngbot hfilm-makersandau-di enceonlywitht hedistinctionbet weenreality andfictionthatwasap-propri at etostatesoffictionandrealityatt hetimetheywereestab-lished.Avant-gardefilmhasalwaysr emar kedont hef adi ngawayof distinctioni nt ogenr e,butithasonlysucceededinrestagingt hedis-tinctionasapr obl emat i cone,t husestablishingits owngenr e. Yett heexi st enceofavant-gardefilmis evi denceofasecondlevelin t hehandl i ngoft hedistinctionbet weenrealityandfiction.Thi stime, t hedistinctionisnot j ustusedinor dertoshowinanent er t ai ni ngway howrealitymaygivewaytofiction,andhowfictionmaytellalotabout reality.Instead,avant-gardefilm,ashasalreadybeennot ed,restages t hedistinctionitself.Itseemst oaskhowrealorfictionalt hedistinc-tionbet weenrealityandfictionactuallyis. Andi ndeed,itsucceedsin 31SeeAndrewTudor,Theories of Film, London1973. S2SeeLotman,Semioticsof Cinema, pp.31-32. M L N575 showingthatthereis noanswertothisquestionunlessit bereference to thereality ofthe questionitself. Restagingt hedistinction,theavant-gardefilmis thusledtorestageitself,andcont i nuestodoso. Yet by askingthis question,by observing,sot ospeak,thedistinction betweenrealityandfiction,moviesstarttodosomet hi ngwhichisout oftheirreachonthefirstlevel.Theyexploreandexhibittheirown failuretocommuni cat e.Thatiswhytheyareinterestedinfictionin thefirstplace.Fictiondrawsattentiontocommuni cat i on.33Fictionis thedomai nthatfunct i onsonlyontheconditionthatnoonefeels obligedto correctany errorsinplace,time,andstory. Thatmeansthat t hereisalmostnocommuni cat i onnecessary.However,ifthelinebe-tweenfictionandrealityisthedomai namovieissupposedtoscout out,andifthislineistobetakenforrealandnotfictional,t henthe verycrossingofthelinebetweenrealityandfictionistobesubjected toerrorcorrection,thatis,toarealitywhichissubjecttocommuni -cation.This,however,doesnotseemtohappen,Jean-LucGodard' s moviesbei ngtheexceptionprovingtherule.Nobodybot herstocor-recterrorsrelatingtothedemarcation.Oneei t hercrossesitornot, believinginit ornot.Itis asif therewerea voidof communi cat i onbe-tweenmoviesmass-communicatedontheonehand,andthesame moviesperceivedontheother.Godardseemstobetheonlyonein-terestedintheformoftheline.34Maybethereasonforthisis thathe ismoreinterestedinworkthaninent er t ai nment .3 5 ApartfromtheexceptionofGodard(butishetheonlyone?),it seemsthatathirdleveltakes over. Thedistinctionbetweenrealityand fictionisnothandl edby communi cat i on,butbytime.Ther eis atime foreverythingwhichis real,andt hereis atimeforfiction.Theyonly haveto beappropriatelyrecognized.Themoviescannothel pbutlend themselvestosuchatemporaldistinctionsincetheyemployandpro-ducetimebycuttingshotsandlettingot hershotsfollow.Thereality ofamovieconsistsentirelyinshotsbeingfollowedby ot hershots,in-cludingthefinalone,whichgiveswaytotheacknowledgmentofthis reality,andwhoseforecastinformsallpreviousshotsofthestateof theirreality.Therealitythemoviestagesisarealitybracketedbythe begi nni ngandendofthefilm.Itis therebycodedasbelongingtofic-3 3See Jean-LucGodard,Introductionduneveritable histoire ducinema, Paris1980. 34Ibid., pp.212-13. 35SeeKlaus Theweleit,"Oneplus OneoderwiemanimKinodieSchonheitertragt: EineLobredeaufdenFilm-ArbeiterJean-LucGodard,ausAnlaBderVerleihung desAdorno-PreisesderStadtFrankfurt amMain," Die Zeit, September22,1995,pp.69-70. 576DIRKBAEC.KER t i on.Th eonl yrealityitstagesisarealityst agedbyfiction.And,t ot he ext entt hatt her eis n oer r orcor r ect i oninfiction,t her eisn ocommu-ni cat i on. Yet wher edoesthiscodeofat i mef orfictionbel ong?Itispr oduced byt het i meoft hepi ct ur esfol l owi ngeachot her .Itisat echni cal l yim-pl e me nt e dcode.Butatt hesamet i me,itrel at est oawhol eappar at us ofcommuni cat i onwhi chempl oyst het echni quesoft hefilmcamer a, oft heedi t i ngt abl e,oft hepr oduct i on,sale,a ndmar ket i ngofmovies. The r ealotofe r r orcor r ect i ont akespl aceinaccor dancewitht hein-t erest soffilming,edi t i ng,pr oduci ng,selling,a ndmar ket i ng.Not hi ng ofthiscommuni cat i onappear sint hemovi e.Andifitshowst heseact s ofcommuni cat i on,itcanonl yshowcommuni cat i onsofthistype.It cannotshowitsoumfilming,edi t i ng,pr oduci ngandsoon.Orcanit? Allthismakesmovi esapecul i arcommuni cat i ont echni quewhichis pr oduc e dbycommuni cat i on,whi chstagescommuni cat i on,andinre-gar dt owhi chcommuni cat i ont akespl acebet weenfilm-makers,spec-t at ors,andcritics.Yetatitscent er ,ift her eisone,itisdevoi dofcom-muni cat i on.Th e r ear eonlypi ct ur esfol l owi ngeachot her .Moviestell alotaboutcommuni cat i on.Butt heyd onotcommuni cat e.Itisonl y i nsof arast heyar eshownt hatmoviesc ommuni c a t eareality,whi ch consistsoft hei rownf adi ngi nt ot hemaki ngofat empor al ,ifnot timely,di st i nct i onbet weenrealityandfiction. Th es t r uct ur eofacommuni cat i ondevoi dofcommuni cat i onre-sembl est hes t r uct ur eoft heMcGuf f i nsAl fredHi t chcockempl oysin hismovi es.3 6McGuf f i nsarefictionalobj ect swhosedi st i ngui shi ng charact eri st i cconsistsint hei rabilityt opr ovi det hei ronl ooker swith t hei mpressi ont hatt heyar ereal.Peopl estartt or u naf t ert hemand t odoallsort soft hi ngs,onl yt obeshownt hatt hei r"cat hexi s"origi-nat eswitht he mandnotwitht heobj ect s.3 7McGuf f i nsl ookbackat t hei ronl ooker st olett he mdiscovert hatitist hei rl ooki ngatt hem whi chcr eat est he m.3 8 J us tt hatis whatmoviesingener aldo.Theylet onl ooker sdi scovert hemsel vesast hevoyeursoft hei rownwaysofcre-at i ngt hei rreality.Theygooutoft hei rway,andoutoft heaudi ence' s way,t od othis.Butthisisallt heydo. Yet,si nceitisi mpossi bl et oshowal ookwi t houtshowi ngwhatit 3 6SeeTruffaut,LeCinhnaselon Hitchcock. 3 7TalcottParsonsetal.,"SomeFundament alCategoriesoft heTheor yofAction:A GeneralStatement, "inTalcottParsonsandEdwardShils,eds.,TowardaGeneral Theory of Action,Cambri dge1951,pp.3-29. 3 8SeeSlavoyZizek,EinTriumphdes Rlicksiiber dasAuge:Psychoanalysebei AlfredHitch-cock,Vienna1992. M L N577 looksat,whatthemoviesstageis,int hefinalanalysis,everythingthat canbelookedatbyalookthatcreatesit. Whatthemoviesshowisthe creationofaworldby gazingatit. Thislookattheworldis, ofcourse, includedintheworlditcreates. By emphasizingthequestionofcommuni cat i on,weareledtoem-phasizet herealityof themovies as theproductof a fiction which,how-ever,is theonlyway oflookingattheworldweactuallyhave.Without beingableto communi cat ethemselves,moviesteachustotakethere-alityoftimetobethedomai ninwhichcommuni cat i ontakesplace t hroughtheidentificationoferrorsbeingfedbackintothevery processthatmadethem.Moviesprofitfromdelayeder r orcorrection inpercept i onaswellasinmasscommuni cat i on.Theyusethisdelay fortheconstructionanddestructionofarealitywerecognizeasours, yetknowtobefiction.Evenournot i onofrealityweseemtoowein partto apicturingofit, whichwemustattributetothestatus offiction. Ther eis noot herrealitythanarealityindicated.Onlycommuni cat i on worksitswaybackandfort hfromarealitydependentondelayeder-rorcorrection,ont heonehand,andarealityproducedbyerrorcor-rectionontheother.Anypicture,however,andespeciallymovingpic-tures,is fasterinits workofrealityconstructiont haner r orcorrection canpossiblybe.Thatseemstobet hereasonforageneralmistrustof picturesintheintellectualquarters of all knowncultures. Thismistrust substituteserrorgeneralizationfor errorcorrection,butit is nomatch fortheconst antflow ofpictureswhichcharacterizesmoder nsociety. Wedonotyetknowwhet herinteractivemovieswillalterthiscon-figurationof afictionalrealityoutsidethedomai nofcommuni cat i on, yet support edby it. Theywill certainlyblurt hedistinctionbetweenre-ality andfictionthatwe havelearned,slowly enough,by beingexposed tomotionpictures.And,iftheymakeitpossibleforcommuni cat i on toi nt erferewithobjectconstitution,theywillchangethestatusofob-jectsthatweallstillbelievewecanrefertobymeansofcommuni ca-tion.39Hutthenitwillbeallthemorei mport antthatweknowhowto drawthedistinctionofcommuni cat i on. University of Bielefeld 3 ySeeElenaEsposito,"Interaktion,InteraktivitatunddiePersonalisierungder Massenmedien,"Soziale Systeme.Zeitschrift for soziologische Theorie 1,2(1995).