A Comment on Dziga Vertov: The Cine-Eye

Ulus Baker

In the context of Russian revolutionary process there appears the movement of Kinoki, whose motives are defined by the Soviet filmmaker Dziga Vertov. The idea of a collectivity of Kinoks relies upon a contestation against the capitalist production of images and representations, seemingly tending to transform the aesthetic desires of masses into an entertainment technology, or if you want, into what Adorno baptised as "culture industry". As Maurizio Lazzarato argues, the movement of Kinoks can be seen as a political project of a "war machine" against the ideological frames of the bourgeois world vision. In more than one sense, the ideas of Vertov outline a further dimension of thought than Guy Debord's "situationist" attitude of sixties, which relied upon the denunciation of the "societies of spectacle". We can even say that Vertov's position is still more actual today than Debord's critique of the spectacle.

Vertov develops a materialist conception of a movement against spectacle --it is more appropriate to attack the "machinery of the spectacle" rather than its outcomes, rather than its ideological effects. Like in a Spinozist proposition, one has to attack the "causes" rather than effects. The Situationist position, on the hand, limits itself to the critique of the spectacle in which its proponents are deploying such themes as "the separation or detachment of reality in the dimension of representation". Can we still believe to the old Marxist interpretation that the world is represented upside down in the image? The argument of Vertov is that a mere discovery that in image and representation, the "immediately lived experience is alienated" is not sufficient to relieve us from the magic world of images and representations. As today Virilio noted, we need a Foucaldian and severe genealogy of the cinematographic apparatus in itself. Vertov's slogan here seems to be ruthless: "Neither the scene, nor the spectacle, nor representation --there is only a machine."

It is evident that such a machine, as defined by Vertov, is immediately and simultaneously semiotic, technological, collective-social and aesthetic, while it cannot be reduced to any of them. To attack "the visible world organized by capitalism", one has to take into consideration all these dimensions as if they are inextricably related. Throughout twentieth century, the complexity of this apparata seemed to lead to partial critiques --aesthetic, politic, economic or social-- which remain inefficient. With the development of ultra-modern technologies of repnresentation and manipulation of images --video and digital image processing-- the entirety of these old and incompatible critical viewpoints are nowadays revived. Even Jean-Luc Godard's temporary "Dziga Vertov Group" in seventies, which directly refers to the Vertovian experience of "seeing" seems to be inefficient and quite shadowy.

Vertov interpreted the Russian Revolution not only as the political destruction of power in Russia, simultaneously with the destruction of capitalist institutions, but also as the disintegration of "man" and of "his world". In this context, the seventh art, the cinema was taken as the "machinic" expression of somehow "external forces" which could cooperate with man's internal forces or faculties: seeing, feeling, being affected, perceiving, thinking... These external forces were at first sight technological inventions of capitalism, adapted to the interests of the bourgeois world. Their pure expressions are revealed in the control of Time (including labour-time and the time of entertainment and leisure) and of virtuality (the strength of images) embedded in machines of vision. These cinematographic machines are capable to "crystallize time" (Deleuze,***) Or, the camera by itself liberates perception from its bound to human body. The Kino-Glaz (the Cine-Eye) is a machinic eye that is able to reveal as visible a new matter and new affections just moving into a relentlessly circulating motion, into the uninterrupted movement of things and bodies. Hence, the earliest forms of the cinematographic images were already capable to shake the tenacity and the stability of the world, while at the beginning, the possibilities of cinema were not fully actualized. The cine-eye, within the becomings of things, is able to inject into the images not only the movement but also the time. Thus it can capture intensity and the non-corporeal element in bodies. The aberrant movements of the camera and of the montage can lead us to a direct experience of a non-human time, of a pure time, and of variations of speeds.

As Deleuze puts it, this is nothing but the "de-territorialization" of objects in their becomings in the world, which now became unstable (the moment of Revolution). This is the possibilty of capturing the virtuality of such a deterritorialized world --it is as if cinema envied a new body and a new thought. It can be observed that every individual is transformed into perceptive, visual and cognitive "mutants". Vertov conceives this situation in parallel to the transformation of the individuals in factories, as they are irremediably impregnated by mechanic and termodynamic machines. Thereby, the "man" understands that he is not thinking with his consciousness, but through machines. This is evidently "good" or "bad", but there is also a "beyond": At the early stages of cinema's adventure, a new kind of rationalism was to be invented, not without direct reference to Spinoza's and Leibniz's "major rationalism": one has to re-define a conception of "spiritual", that is, "non-corporeal automate" (automaton spiritualis). This is a new way of sequential thought --a visual one. It is capable to concatenate the images "beyond" or "below" consciousness. The new rationalism of the Kinoks is revealed in a new kind of realism of images, which is conceived as a field of experience in the domain of class struggles.

It has long been said that capitalism is forming a new kind of "visible" whose subject (the 'I see') is no longer a psychological subject. This means that the social form of this visibility cannot be reduced to the spectators. Vertov anticipates a new, collective and plural subject which transcends the "naive and zealous client" of dark cine-halls. The 'I see' of the Kinoglaz is on the contrary a singularization of the collective body of the proletariat in the process of its formation. There is no room in observing in this position of Vertov an ideological reference: this is a paradigm of agencies which are both aesthetic and productive. His motto is "factory instead of theatre" --and a "cyborg" of collective worker, a co-dependency of man and machine...

Vertov does not believe that the traditional aesthetic positions and arts could be able to decipher the "visible": literary, dramatic or graphical techniques are not adapted to the crystallization of time and to its reproduction. This machine is the cinematographic one... Hence, such a mutation of the class point of view makes it necessary not to "close" the cinema onto itself --one has to grasp the "temporal" specificity and the immediately social nature of these machines. In fact, the filmmaker, the producer and the spectators are more or less consciously cooperating in the reproduction and persistence of their roles. Each are developing by themselves the functions of subjectivation and bondage inherent in the cinematographic apparatus. To this, one should also add the "mass character" of the cinema, which in itself has to be integrated into the cinematographic communication through the process of film production.

According to Vertov, to close the cinema onto itself is to sacrifice a new and different mode of production to the established "commercial" and "artistic" forms. "There is nothing in common between the actual cinema that is conceived as a commercial activity, or of the cinema conceived as a branch of art and what we are doing." (Vertov,***)

Through the rejection of cinema as commerce and cinema as art, Vertov clearly aims to destroy cinema in its own domain, since cinema is nothing but a capitalist machine of production of the visible, of the perception and of thought. The mere utterance of the order-word "long live class viewpoint" does not refer to a more moral, more political, more aesthetic vision of world, but to another corporeal, technological and verbal agency, through which all cinematographic functions will be re-organized. There is a difference of nature between the aesthetic and commercial dimensions and the new dimension of Vertovian cinema, which doesn't claim any production of a content, whether social, political or economic.

Vertov was aware of the fact that the class struggles of the fin-de-siècle, which coincided with the invention of cinema have engendered new ways of perceiving and thinking in the world. However, the "virtual" parties of these struggles were still trapped in the framework of "spectator-filmmaker" relationship in the context of representation. What was the function of cine-drama after all? With its actors, scenarists, studios, script-writers it was serving to the reduction of the new modes of expression and the collective body (engendered by the world-revolution) to the form of spectatorship. Vertov was evidently unaware of the capacity and the future of this mutant and generic "collective body" of this industrial proletariat, but he knew something very well: that the cinematographic sensibility was one of the highest political problems.

Hence, the strategy of Vertov's Kinoks aims at the internal destruction of the division of labour imposed by the technological machinery of the cinema. According to Vertov, the cinema can do two things: it can serve what our eyes "which can only badly see" with images our consciousness demanded; or it can be engaged in the "conquest of the chaos" of visual phenomena filling the world and the space by means of the camera which is free from the rythms and motions of our bodies. The second option is the Kinoglaz: "I am Cine-Eye, A mechanic eye. I, the machine, I show you the world in the way only I can see it. I am now totally liberated from human inertia. I am within unterrupted movement... Liberating myself from the passage of 16-17 pictures at one second, from the frames of space and time, I bring together every point of the universe I recorded..." (Vertov, ***) This idea of absolute, pure film of the camera and montage is not far from being impregnated by a secondary idea of the Kinoks, who were involved to stress and develop the "accidents" of shooting process: speed-shots, microscopic shots, moving-camera shots, the most extraordinary or aberrant shots --the entirety of the cine-eye can be defined as a system of "visual clinamen" which is capable, through montage, to reveal us time: "Cine-Eye is the microscobe and telescobe of Time..." (Vertov,***)

Vertov had then many reasons to denounce the use of pre-scripts and scenarios. These are working within the cinematographic division of labour as normative agencies which are destined to neutralize the entire span of incidents in the film-process. Trying to fix everything, the script freezes the entire dimension of the hazards coming from the contact of the camera with reality at large: this is the definition of Cine-Truth, the Kinopravda --"Kinopravda doesn't force life to happen in accordance with a scenario of an author, it observes and records life as it is; it derives conclusions only afterwards..." (Vertov,***) Scenario is the invention of single persons or single groups of people, it is not our probable meeting with a world we don't yet recognize: "Not from the work to the material, we move from the material to the cinematographic work --thereby, the Kinoks are attacking the last --and the most solid-- rempart of the artistic cinematography, of the literary scenario..." (Vertov, ***)

In addition, in this doctrine of Cine-Truth, the representation of an event by a filmmaker is only of secondary importance compared with the actualization of the "real time" of ongoing life. If the camera is the machine-eye which enables us to enter into uninterrupted movement, into the uninterrupted variations of the flux of things, the montage should not obey to the demands of human perception and prejudices. There is a psychology of the eye and the fetishism of language in the Nietzschean sense. Through this, some basic needs and demands of the spectators are supplied and satisfied by the entertainment technology of cinema. Or, through montage, one aims at the "organization of the visible world" --while respecting the temporality constructing the world: "There has been many experiments in these fields. One should say there are a few successful attempts. There are montage-tables resembling a system of musical notation, akin to the analyses of rythms and intervals..."

Through such a Constructivist methodology, the movement of the Kinoks prefer the factories, trains and boats, rather than the salons of projection --the "electrical opium of cinema halls": "I am guiding a cine-wagon, we give a spectacle in a lost station..." We can trace two series --the series of modern transportation which translate us in space, and a parallel series of expression of a travel in time through assembling the cine-eye to these means of transport. This is similar to Kafka's wish --to have telephones mounted on planes and other means of transport. This is a new perception of the world, "deciphering" an unknown world by new means and modes.

The function of the cine-eye is to see and make us to see: "it opens eyes, enlightens the gaze...", because we are yet those unable to see. The cine-eye gives us the possibility of joining a movement or image at a given point of the universe, with another movement or image at another point. These images or movements are not commensurable from the viewpoint of the human eye, which is unable to see them in its finitude of prejudices: "Cine-Eye is the capacity to see the processes of life in any temporal sequence which remains invisible to the human eye..." (Vertov, ***) The cine-eye shouyd extract the "resulting vector of the essential movement" which is yet unknown, out of the chaos of movements --thus it relates to the "daily life and its organization".

The realization of Vertov's project cannot reproduce the division of labour in cinema. Vertov suggests a process of production which develops in six "series". Only the first "series" seems to be accomplished through the works of the Kinoks, the other stages remaining tentative, before the oppressions of the Stalinist regime have began. This serie is called "life through improvisation"...

"In this serie, the camera prudently enters into life, selecting a certain little vulnerable point, and it is directed in the visual milieu it deployed. Through following series, with the augmentation of the number of cameras, the space placed under observation gets larger. The juxtaposition of different places of the earth and of different pieces of life forces us to discover the visible world. Each series add clarity to the comprehension of reality. Millions of workers, having reconquered the vision are putting doubt on the necessity of sustaining the bourgeois structure of the world."

Here, the same visual material passes into a more profound analysis and into a reorganization to enlighten the relationships of the treated subjects, using every technical means at disposal, including the formal technics of the cinema. For Vertov, "the fabric of events" reconquer the "cine-observers" who produce "cine-observations" and "cine-analyses" in the context of a poetic cinema. It appears that cinema has long abandoned such a possibility, and we had to wait until Jean-Luc Godard who invoked that "cinema should not limit itself to tell the history, but should make the History visible..." Today it is possible to see the same anticipation in the works of a few video-artists.

The entire polemic of Vertov with the Hollywoodian ideology (and with some differences, with Eisenstein) is organized alongside the "revolutionary" necessity to relieve the cinema from images and representation. The critical idea that the "image is the reification of the visible" holds true in Vertov, but he is able to transcend it: the visible is not reduced to images and movements. The true genetic element of the visible is called by Vertov as the "interval". We can see more than images and movements, if we are situated in the dimension of the intervals. An interval is "in between" the images, just like rythms and aberrant movements. "The school of cine-eye expects that the film should be built on 'intervals', that is, on the movement between the images... The intervals (passages from a movement to another) but never movements themselves are constituting the materials and the elements of the art of movement..." (Vertov,***)

The theory of intervals is the core of the Vertovian philosophy: an interval is a "suture", a shift, a blank or a transfer: it is not a satisfaction of the prejudices of of our eyes, all too human eyes. It is the "background", the pure blank of the totality, never defined by the images themselves --it is a pure flux of the screen... The interval which cannot be reduced to images and movements is their source or origin. It is something like the absolute eternal attributes of Spinoza. Within the domain of the visible, the interval cannot be reduced to any discursive or figurative entity.

The "major rationalism" of Spinoza and the minor rationalism (intuition as a method) of Bergson can now be seen a keys to the understanding of the notion of "interval". In Spinoza, one should go beyond pure images,  beyond the knowledge of the first kind which is inadequate, beyond the notions of affections. The knowledge of an attribute (thought or extension) is to grasp through the eyes of the intellect the plane upon which every idea, every object are concatenated --visible only to a mental eye. Bergson too, through his intuitive method, wanted to go beyond the mere representation of things, the representation of the objects through their images, which appear to the consciousness as "immobile sections" of becomings and interrupted processes --the movement and duration...

The Kinoglaz tends to become, through the doctrine of intervals, a machine of contraction-detention of the time. One should say that the time can be crystallized through being made visible: "The mechanic eye of the camera leaves itself to be attracted or guided by the movements and thut opens the way of its own movement or of its own oscillation. It experiences the tracking of the time, it dismembers the movement or absorbs time in itself... The cine-eye is the concentration and decomposition of the time..." (Vertov, ***)

It is crucial here to compare Vertov's viewpoint with the Situationist positions (especially Debord): they affirm that "the totality of the life of our societies announces itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles." And if the spectacle is "the capital to the degree of accumulation that it tends to become a spectacle", one should nevertheless go beyond the image as a commodity. Marx was already aware of the role of the crystallization of time in the process of the enigmatic capitalist relationship constructed between time (of labour in this instance) and subjectivity --the commodification of the time as labour-time into capital... The cinematography and the philosophy of Vertov shows us another aspect of "crystallization of time" --the invention of another type of machine which is capable to encounter the mechanic and thermodynamic machines; a machine capable to reproduce the time of perception, of sensibility and of thought.

It is essential to admit that the cinema practically shows that thought can be beyond consciousness jusbt as images can go beyond pure, natural perception of human beings. Man has lost the certainty that he was the producer of the images and his thoughts. In the epoch of the decomposition of "man" and of his world, what is at stake is therefore the "power to think" (remember Spinoza), the image of thought and its process of creation. The "visual thought" of the cine-eye leads to an automatized production of images, corresponding to the "spiritual automate" that we are --it agitates the "circles of ideas" in our memory, and opens the possibility to make thoughts "fall directly from the screen to the brain of the spectator..." What is central to Vertovian cinema is not therefore representation, nor mediation: "the thoughts should directly flourish on the screen, without the trick of speech. This is a living contact with the screen, a transmission from brain to brain... Each of us penetrate into a circle of ideas which agitates in us our own consciousness..." (Vertov,***)

There is a general affirmation, praised especially by structuralists and semioticians of cinema today, that "cinema is a language"... But Vertov shows that it is not at all a narrative language, but just a "visual one": this visual language can be opposed to the spoken language, or to the literary language, since it is deployed in the network of a complexity of forces and signs agitating the production of thought.   It is evident that in his documentary film Tri Pesne o Lenine (Three Songs on Lenin) Vertov does not pass through words and narration. He deliberately tries to adopt other ways to capture the interaction between the sound and the image, "with the resulting vector of multiple channels" in his words: "here by the sound, there by the image, or in the inter-title; here by the internal framing of the movement, there by the stroke of darkness to the light; and sometimes with noise..." His method is to pass by "subterranean paths sometimes leaving some sentences or words to reach the surface". (Vertov, ***)

Vertov says "only some sentences", some bits of words coming to the "surface". It is important to note that what he denounces here is the entire "imperialistic" signifying regime which imposes the fetishism of subject and object on the production of thought. When their primacy is destroyed, the words written or spoken in a film can be reorganized in a system of rythms and counter-points. The cine-eye is producing another image of thought.

Guy Debord insists that "the spectacle is a social relationship mediatized through images..." (Debord,***) This also means that the forces captured, manipulated and exploited by the spectacle are the same forces that are capable to constitute social relationships in another fashion. Situationists are denouncing the "cine-sensation" while Vertov, transcending the mere critique of the spectacle, endeavours to liberate the forces captured in it to reorganize them in another way. He interprets the "cine-sensation" as the totality of the forces of seeing, feeling and thinking --it is not the one-way domination by the spectacle. These forces are expressed, by means of the cinema, by their machinic nature and by their appropriation by a collective. Vertov introduces the concept of "cine-bound" which is a "visual and auditive bound of class between the proletarians of every nations..." Without seeing through intervals, how a community of sensations and class bounds could be thought of among the proletarians of distant nations? Hence, the cine-eye should be defined as "an appropriated space of a visual bound between the people of the entire world" and founded on an uninterrupted exchange of the facts that are seen by each --"cine-documents" which have to be opposed to the mainly commercial exchange (characteristic of the entertainment culture of capitalism) of cine-theatral representations and spectacles.

Vertov envisages the passage from "cine-sensation" to "cine-bound" as a simultenously ethical and political process which will lead to the organization and constitution of social body, destined to compose and augment the creativity of multitudes through these "machines to see, to feel and to think.." The ethics of Vertov is not concerned with the individual responsibility of the film-director before the images and the public, but is rather concerned in the encounter, the composition, the augmentation of the power to be affected and to affect of bodies through cine-sensation and cine-bind. The constitutive force of the cine-bind is somehow an oscillation, it is a telematic one as it can work through distances. It endures in the actual debates about the possibilities of the new technologies of information and communication.

The non-human perception endowed by the cine-eye thus refers us to a kind of Nietzschean "overman", or to the "new man" of the revolution. Vertov does not pay any attention to the kind of "communist humanism" of his contemporaries like Charles Chaplin and Sergey M. Eisenstein. In Vertov, there is nothing which opposes man and the machines: man already assumed the "second nature" given to him by capitalism and this is an irreversible reality, and it is the condition of the "transcending the man". The "cine-eye", the "radio-ear" and the "tele-eye" today, if not the "brain-computer" of our times are deployments of hybrid machines by which the collective subject of revolution can see, speak, hear and think. One can invoke the machinic body, a cyborg of vision, of perception and of thought which can be expressed as such, without delegating to anyone the task of producing the visible and the sensible. This means to oppose to the technological and financial (capitalist) concentration of the cinema a micro-politics of the cine-eye that implies a socialization of the cinematographic know-how and the miniuaturization of the technology. In this sense, Vertov anticipates todays video technologies: "We no longer need immense workshops, grandiose decors, nor those "grandiose" film directors, "great artists" and sensational photogenic women; we need rather 1) rapid means of transport; 2) high-sensibility films; 3) ultra-light hand cameras; 5) an ultra-rapid team of cine-reporters; 6) an army of observer-kinoks..." (Vertov,***)

The organization scheme to be given to the Kinoks will distinguish between "observer-kinoks", "operator kinoks", "constructor-kinoks", "editor-kinoks" (including women), and "lab-technician kinoks". The main project is to implant the cine-work in the komsomols and in pionneer organizations to provide "our knowledge and technical experience to the sure hands of the ascending working youth" (Vertov, ***) In this context, the "mass character" of the cinema should not be limited only to the diffusion-distribution of films and to their reception by the audience; it should also involve the imperatives of "production", since otherwise, the power of expression would necessarily become "expropriated". Vertov anticipates what Godard was invoking: "we need a pedagogy of the image"...

Vertov's denial of the "cine-drama" is the necessary outcome of his critique of the concentration and control of the means of production and redistribution by the capitalist industry of cinema. From this point of view, the Soviet regime was doing nothing but to reproduce the organization of work it attempted to criticize at this epoch, propagating through entertainment films and dramatic works. The "leftist" engaged cinema too is opposed by a "micro-politics" which is the sole way to put the possibility of not becoming the subject of films at the disposal of Soviet workers. Eisenstein's cinema, for instance was admitting the masses as the formal, but not real subject of cinematography. Masses should become not the subject of the films but of the entire process of the production of the visible and the sensible.

Hence, Vertov is singled out as the only author to think cinema and organize it not as an "art of masses" but as a mass activity, as a constitutive activity, as a collective work. This was already hidden, implicit in the technological apparition of the cinema, and now is evaluated by Vertov as a constructive force. You can easily think about today's post-fordist accumulation through computers and networks deploying a new kind of intellectual and affective activity. Vertov denies that he is working like an "artist" but pretends to become a relay in the network of correspondents throughout the entire Soviet Union. He is working within a flux which cannot be reduced to any frame of division of labour, which cannot be controled. Such a conception of work denounces any reference to the distinction between "manual" and "intellectual" labour. Thus, is eliminates the figure of the "artist", of author or intellectual... It should be said that, therefore, the work of the Kinoks cannot be simply considered as an artistic work. Its machinic and collective form and character objectively and subjectively connects this work to the labour in general: "the cells of red kinoks must be considered as a factory among others, where the raw material furnished by the observer-kinoks is transformed into future cine-works." (Vertov, ***) What Vertov aims at is the acknowledgement and establishment of universality and generality of the creative work: "the present film constitutes the raid and the challenge of the cameras to reality and prepares the theme of creative work on the background of class contradictions and daily life." (Vertov, ***)

Walter Benjamin too, occasionally referring to Vertov, was aware that the "cine-bind" could be used as a paradigm in the socialization of creative work: "This passage of the creation from one single author or from a group of persons to the mass creation will lead also to accelerate the crash of the bourgeois artistic cinema and of its attributes: the actor, the fable script and the costly toys like decors, and the grand-priest, the director..." (Benjamin, ***)

It should also be noted that the position of Vertov has nothing to do with the anti-intellectualist and populist vision of a "proletarian artist" (the proletarian filmmaker as the follower of the proletarian writer). What is affirmed here is the fact that the agencies that are capable to open unknown territories beyond the author and the artist, of becomings implying the virtualities of other aesthetic, social and productive paradigms.

We have already stressed how Vertov anticipates the video, if not the television which remains today agenced unilaterally --a movement of images going from the screen to the viewer. The technological apparatus of cinema was effectively used by him in the path of such an anticipation --an anticipation of a "tele-emission of images and sounds": "From the point of view of the human eye, I have no reasons to show myself among those, for example, who are present in this hall. However, in the space of the cine-eye, I can make a montage of myself, not only as sitting near you, but better, in different places of the world. It would be ridiculous to place before the cine-eye those obstacles like walls or distance. Anticipating the television, one should understand that through montage, this 'vision at a distance' becomes possible." Hence the television is according to Vertov not only a technological device more appropriate to the "circulating eye", but also an apparatus more convenient to the social and collective dimensions of the production of life, which has already been introduced by capitalism as a presupposition: "the procedure of the radio-transmission of the images that comes to be invented in our epoch could  help us reaching what is essential more and more... To establish a visual bind of class (the cine-eye) in parallel to an auditive one (radio-ear) between the proletarians of all countries, on the platform of a communist deciphering of the world."

That the cinema is something "artistic" and television "cultural" in our times is irrelevant to the position of Vertov, since  in his time, the technology of television was not yet invented, and we can easily say that it could be otherwise: under capitalist conditions the television is only one way of the realization of the tele-diffusion, tele-emission of images and sounds, as a uni-lateral machine for the manipulation of opinions, which was not evidently the mode anticipated by Vertov. He is not a "futurist" of machines, a fetishist of technologies, fascinated by the imperialism of the technology and of the cult of science. Vertov always believed to the priority of the social and collective machine over technological machine: "even in the domain of technique, we should only partly do with what is called artistic cinema, since the exercise of the tasks we adopt here suggests another conception of the technique." (Vertov, ***) This reference to "another conception of technique" is here essential, since Vertov's "war machine of Kinoglaz" has been crushed under the Soviet regime in thirties, which adopted the cine-drama in the mode of Eisenstein as "socialist realism", penetrated by the Hollywoodian commercial mentalities and structures. The movement of the Kinoks remains significant not in their persecution by the regime and the evident victory of the Hollywood cinema as an entertainment industry, but in their power to anticipate new technologies and agencies of social communication and their attempt to create a new conception of technology. This does not mean that they were fetishists of technology; nor they are the holders of a Heideggerian viewpoint on technology as a "catastrophic experience". They were aware of the fact that machines were not only external things to the man --men and their collectivities could also be conceived as machinic assemblages.

It is evident that the Nazi aesthetics, revealed in the works of Leni Riefenstahl had somehow all motives to imitate the experience of the cine-eye, under the form of the great Nazi spectacle of power, under the guidance of Dr. Goebbels: "make me a film like..." Or, the Nazi regime of truth was far distant from any understanding of the Kinopravda. Riefenstahl was asked to organize a great scene of Nazi demonstration, in Nurnberg or during the 36 Olympic Games, and not to build a collective cine-eye capable to call the masses into creative cinematic labour. It was pure propaganda, a totalitarian society of spectacle, "the one of Germans". Jean-Pierre Faye (Faye, ***) is able to discern the "totalitarian language" of the Nazis as the one which makes what it said, as different from the language of Italian fascism, which was employed to justify the deeds afterwards: in Leni Riefenstahl's film "The Triumph of the Will", there is no cine-eye, since the dramatization of the event comes first, before shooting and editing. Riefenstahl is seemingly the one who produced images not as a discovery or contact with truth. She was expected to compose the entire "mise-en-scène", as the primary author of the ceremony, transforming life into a grandiose decor.