Hannah Barton

'Deux Fois', a film by Jackie Raynal, was shown at Raven Row as part of their 'Visions, Divisions and Revisions: Political Film and Film Theory in the 1970s and 80s' program, of which the overarching aim was to revisit and analyse the use of film as a political device.

The title of Raynal's film (translated into English as 'Twice' or 'Twice Upon a Time') references the inclusion of repeated scenes within it, which immediately infers even to the uninitiated at least one aim - an exploration of how one perceives meaning in film through narrative and editing. At the screening the audience was also encouraged to consider the socio-political relevance of Raynal's authorship, and consider how this attributed 'Deux Fois' with added political significance.

Comprised of simple scenes, sympathetic in style to performance art and silent in the main, 'Deux Fois' is pleasingly complex and proffers itself to highly discursive readings. For me it resonated primarily in two ways, the first of which being the marked use of the editing process as signifier, as opposed to the scene or character as signifier.

By this I mean that at Raynal's choosing (and with her experience as an editor being exercised), the way a scene was cut and directed could infer more meaning than the events that took place in the scene itself. Consequence was not evoked through scenic action or acting in the traditional sense, but in demonstrative re-enacting; through the repeated performance of a scene. Continually self-aware, the film proper seemingly disappears from existence- it is the breakdown of the film that remains and resonates.

The deliberate 'destruction of signification' through scenic repetition forces one to question the primary function of film itself; fundamentally Raynal undertook a dissection of perception manipulated by process.

Secondly, the notion of 'Deux Fois' as cinema au feminin should be discussed. I want to tread carefully here, as to me the feminist reading of 'Deux Fois' is achieved with significant, but pleasingly subtle devices. There is a feminist trajectory; certain scenes in the film pose questions about the dynamics of 'the couple' (a masochistic threat towards the female is tangible throughout), and visually provocative elements such as female self-abasement and the self-conscious adoption of girlish behaviour by Raynal's character direct one to take a feminist reading of certain sequences. But as such the film is open to politicization by stealth, and there has to be a distinct intellectual difference between overt political filmmaking and films with political attributions.

Of course Raynal knew what her artistic decisions in the film would achieve and provoke. 'Deux Fois' has feminist themes, most certainly, but they are present as aspects of a piece that more wholly explores lifestyle choices, societal pressures and divides, as well as the intellectual power of film, visual signs and symbols, and modes of expression and perception. This raises the debate of where feminist interpretations stop and broader social evaluations begin.

As such 'Deux Fois' tackles issues pertinent to feminism throughout, though I would not conclude that all are feminist in conception. Expansive themes are explored and should be understood independently - and as feminist when relevant. Otherwise the feminist interpretation risks being undermined.