Venom and Eternity

Isidore Isou made Venom and Eternity in 1951. He was part of the Lettriste movement. Isou sought to destroy the image and make the visual and sonic components of a film complement each other and be on an equal level. This movie is experimental -there is a constant narrative throughout its three parts and the words and images to not match up to tell a story. The images for the most part have nothing to do with the words -first a speech by Daniel about Lettrisme and NEW CINEMA. There is Lettriste poetry, and this poetry of letters, not words, ran throughout the movie, too, underneath the narrative.

For example, (http://www.sensesofcinema.com/wp-content/uploads/images/07/45/venom-eternity.jpg) here Isou's speech is paired with an image of city buildings. These street shots are of buildings, cars, pedestrians, cafés, and parks. The shots often feature things (cars, people, feet in shoes, boats) moving or the camera's motion in shots of still things (buildings). The images were often slightly out of focus, or a little soft, and sometimes underexposed. Instead of a logical union of sound and image, there really is no cohesion between the two parts of cinema. Still, watching this movie was not unpleasant. Daniel's speech was intermixed with a "love" story, and seeing his love interest, Eve, changed up the rather impersonal city shots. The narrative shifted between his speech and his account of his meeting and leaving Eve. Daniel and Eve have a dialogue during a dance they attend. We never see this dance or them dancing, instead the images are of fishermen working on boats, upside down and backwards walking on sidewalks, upside down cityscapes, and more details of Parisian buildings -mostly exteriors, then in the last part, interiors of apartments. This addition of interior shots coincides with Daniel's story of Eve ending. Their breaking off is awkward and personal, because Eve says she loves him, and Daniel narrates that he wishes she would just leave his bed. None of this is shown. Sound and image do not combine their messages, but they did not seem to fight against each other.

 I am not sure how Dorsky, in terms of his Devotional Cinema, would regard this film. This movie upsets convention, maybe even "what is easy to watch". Isou and Daniel want to "hurt the eyes" instead of viewers not seeing anything at all, learning, thinking, or being challenged by cinema. The film clearly is made of film -it is scratched and drawn on, covering people's faces. The way in which Daniel speaks directly to an audience within the film and also to us, the audience watching the film, makes the film "continue to express its nowness."