Research statement

In his analysis of a sequence from Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds, in which a flock of seagulls soars over the small town of Bodega Bay, engulfed in flames after their attack at a gas station, Žižek (2006) observes that the shot tracing the birds' flight becomes the gaze of a malevolent non-human agency. In this video, I was particularly interested in disrupting the integrity of the original images and narrative to materialize this malevolent agency through visual and sound effects, created through the destructive appropriation of the filmic archive.

The still components of the mise-en-scène and the erratic, phantom-like appearances of the characters come to occupy an extra-diegetic space that unsettles the original film. By amplifying and distorting the film's content and form, the video experiments with the materialization of an off-screen space [hors champ] (Deleuze 1989) that excludes normal presence and speech. Emerging from the reinscription of moving afterimages within previously manipulated still images, this videographic piece seeks to transform our perception of the film by emphasizing an incoherent and disruptive logic that, while inherent to the film, is nonetheless masked by its linear narrative and diegetic chain of events.

The camera's anomalous gaze and the engulfing movements of the birds express the void of human presence, emphasizing the unthinkable and the inconceivable through defigured images and off-center camera movements that evoke an eerie, dehumanized gaze.

Context

This piece results from the reworking of an earlier version published in [in]Transition in 2019. When first submitted to Screenworks, the piece incorporated the reinsertion of film snippets within previously emptied décors and the reworking of the sequence in which the schoolchildren are insidiously attacked by a murder of crows. Following revision, the videographic piece was significantly edited down to focus exclusively on selected birds' attack sequences and their anticipation so that the impact of digital manipulation and narrative disintegration could be maximized. 

Initially, my sole reference for the fabrication of the piece was Martin Arnold's Deanimated (2002). Thanks to the reviewer’s feedback, I came to realize that the piece also engages in dialogue with other videographic films that explore similar themes and methodologies, such as Johannes Binotto's Metaleptic Attack (2021), David Verdeure's The Apartment (2018), and Viktoria Paranyuk’s Still Lives of Jeanne Dielman (2024). The piece aligns with Verdeure's and Paranyuk’s focus on what typically escapes our attention, shifting from viewing filmic sets as mere backgrounds to the plot, to affirming sets and traces of presences as crucial elements in revealing what is latent and remains invisible within the film. In relation to Binotto's piece, there is a shared interest in the disturbing capacity of sound and visual videographic objects, their ability to resonate on multiple levels (as emphasized by Hitchcock’s reference to Oskar Sala's electronic composition of the birds’ sounds), and the "amplification" of the passages and migrations between sound and image, cinema and video, and living/human being and machine (Binotto 2021).

Recent geopolitical tensions and the Russian military aggression against Ukraine were equally important factors in my decision to rework the previous piece. At the height of the nuclear threat, I remember looking out the window and confronting the unsettling realization that the once unimaginable possibility of the air we breathe becoming contaminated by nuclear radiation spreading across Europe now felt disturbingly real. This explains my interest in combining the stills and the afterimages of Hitchcock’s film to materialize the anticipation of an imminent catastrophe, and in depicting the engulfing of bodies and places by the birds as a metaphor for a poisoned atmosphere, tainted by violence and tragedy. As I was working and reworking the appropriated images, I kept asking myself whether the unimaginable nature of the bird attacks could not be partially explained by Hitchcock's confrontation with the horror of the images from the Nazi camps and the inconceivable dimension of an event he helped document through his role as a consultant in German Concentration Camps Factual Survey, produced by Sidney Bernstein in 1945. However, that is a hypothesis that should remain strictly speculative.

Laura Mulvey stated that the new horizon shaped by emerging technologies fosters a distinct ontology of the image, one grounded in the uncertainty and ambivalence of traditional oppositions in film theory and criticism, while also making us aware that analogue media is genetically founded on "the co-presence of movement and stillness, continuity and discontinuity" (Mulvey 2006, 12). My hope is that the vibration of sound and visual objects — and of still and moving images offering an “extra-use” of dramatic significance (Hitchcock in Binotto 2021) — could be equally understood historically and trans-historically, rather than in terms of a mere formal and aesthetic exercise with no epistemological consequences... So that a disparity between the original film and its videographic distortion can emerge as archive effect and affect (Baron 2012), and as empathetic and pathetic epistemology.

Methods

In Theory of Colours, published in 1810, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe explored how afterimages appear as the result of looking at intense colours or bright lights, such as the sun, and how these afterimages often display peculiar colour configurations and patterns. Goethe’s observations on afterimages reflect his focus on subjective visual experiences, their chromatic effects, and the phenomenon of certain images continuing to appear in the eyes after a period of exposure to an intense stimulus. In a continuous back-and-forth between the memory of Hitchcock’s film and its transformed perception in the present, The Birds: Afterimages, After Hitchcock offers an alternative experience of this cinematic classic, aiming to construct deferred perceptions and alternative readings that push the boundaries of our interpretation. 

Digital intervention within the videographic piece aims to disrupt the linearity of the diegetic narrative, removing or absorbing the presence of figures and placing them in a liminal space of uncertainty and (dis)appearance. The piece also explores the disintegrating materiality of digital reproduction and the experimental appropriation of the original film, emphasizing the fragmentary nature and precarious condition of both filmic archives and the mental recollection of the film as preserved in our minds. The electronic effects originally used to produce the birds' noises are emphasized in this video through the cancellation of human language and presence, which manifest as de-figured bodies and uncanny spaces. At times, figures are absorbed by the haunting movement of bird flocks, as seen in the schoolchildren’s sequence; at other moments, figures emerge as fixed shadows, acting as traces of absent characters on the verge of complete erasure. 

The juxtaposition of the emptied décors with the de-figured afterimages intensifies the perception of something intolerable, unbearable, revealed from within the disintegrated materiality of the images. The tension between the presence and absence of the characters gives the décors an oppressive dimension, and sounds are crafted as acousmatic effects of the narrative. In their precarity, presences are echoes of worlds that ceased to exist even before they were fully extinguished. The reproduced interiors devoid of human presence thus appear as places of confinement beyond which life becomes impossible, as the landscape is irredeemably infected with violence, fear, and evil.

Outcomes

Typically, interventions in a film are based on exercises of comparison, compilation, and re-editing. By using digital manipulation as the primary method of experimentation, I am presenting an unconventional approach to intervening in Hitchcock’s film, transforming the very fabric of the images rather than just their narrative structure and sequence. Thus, the intervention extends beyond the level of critique and representation to consider the composition of the image, its “legibility as an image” (Hon 2019), and the historical reverberation of this new legibility. The experimental nature of the piece relates to the deliberate assault on the film archive, questioning the criteria of technical perfection and high resolution of appropriation videographic film. In sum, the method of creating "tears and rents in the fabric of the image" (Hon 2019) opens up zones of (non)legibility and off-screen spaces, producing new readings and perceptions that emerge from the altered images and the historical and epistemological readings they are able to (re)orient.

Impact

Much has been said about the need to construct visibilities for what typically remains invisible (Rancière 2006; Didi-Huberman 2018). But what kinds of visibility are we talking about? The visibility of media that convert horror and suffering into ritualized media forms? The information systems that treat images as icons, capable of circulating globally and being rapidly consumed until their initial shock effect is depleted? The criterion of "visibility" is not a catch-all solution. In certain contexts, instead of emphasizing visibility, we should consider invisibility as a means of creating zones of uncertainty, incoherence, and (non)legibility that provoke individuals to question what they see and how they perceive it. The result is that images of this kind are not forgotten, or not so easily forgotten/repressed, as they connect with elements that transcend the mere state of affairs and become integral to individuals' subjective and imaginative construction of the world. These processes highlight non-diegetic and extra-diegetic spaces that disrupt the overtly visible aspects of information and the fictional mechanisms through which emotions are projected onto characters subsumed to the trajectories of romantic plots. As a space of discovery situated between the already seen and the not-yet-seen, the anomalous images and sounds presented in the piece might endure, surviving the moment when we are compelled to confront the threats of human violence and catastrophe.

References

Arnold, M. (2002) ‘Deanimated’. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DpAQRcvFbk [accessed 12 May 2025]

Baron, J. (2012). 'The Archive Effect: Archival Footage as an Experience of Reception'. Projections 6 (2): 102–120. https://doi.org/10.3167/proj.2012.060207.

Bernstein, S. (1945/2014). German Concentration Camps Factual Survey. SHAEF: Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force / Imperial War Museums – IWM London. Available from https://www.iwm.org.uk/partnerships/german-concentration-camps-factual-survey

Binotto, J. (2021). 'Metaleptic Attack’. Transferences [online]. Available from https://transferences.org/videoessays/performative-deformative-video-essays/metaleptic-attack/

Deleuze, G. (1989). Cinema 2: The Time-Image. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.

Didi-Huberman, G. (2018). 'To Render Sensible'. In Alain Badiou et al., What is a People. NY: Columbia University Press, pp.65-86.

Duarte, M.M. (2019). ‘The Birds, After Hitchcock: Beyond the Movement of Cinema’.  [in]Transition: Journal of Videographic Film and Moving Image Studies [online] 5 (4). Available from https://intransition.openlibhums.org/article/id/11390/ [accessed 12 May 2025]

Goethe, J. W. V. (1994) Theory of Colours. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 

Hon, G. (2019). ‘Review of The Birds, After Hitchcock: Beyond the Movement of Cinema’. [in]Transition: Journal of Videographic Film and Moving Image Studies [online] 5 (4). Available from https://intransition.openlibhums.org/article/id/11390/ [accessed 12 May 2025]

Mulvey, L. (2006). Death 24x a Second. London: Reaktion Books. 

Paranyuk, V. (2024). 'Still Lives of Jeanne Dielman'. Tecmerin. Journal of Audiovisual Essays [online] . Available from: https://tecmerin.uc3m.es/project/13-1/?lang=en.

Rancière, J (2006). The Politics of Aesthetics. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Verdeure, D. (2018). 'The Apartment'. Film Scalpel [online]. Available from https://www.filmscalpel.com/the-apartment/

Žižek, S. (2006). The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema (documentary directed by Sophie Fiennes; written by Slavoj Zizek). Vienna and London: Mischief Films/Amoeba Film.

Peer Reviews

All reviews refer to original research statements which have been edited in response to what follows:

Review 1: Accept submission for publication with no amendments.

While watching Duarte’s video, but before reading his accompanying statement, I jotted down in my notes: “Birds has a quality of incoherence – no explanation for why the birds attack.  Video seems to be reworking material around this.”  This quality of incoherence is largely cloaked by the characters, their romance plot, the linear narrative, and so on.  But it is nevertheless always felt.  And memories of the film often gather not just around the big set pieces (e.g., the birds attacking the schoolchildren), but also around this feeling of incoherence that emerges from an otherwise coherently narrated sequence of events.

Duarte’s video is pushing to make this incoherence all there is of the film.  In doing so (and perhaps paradoxically), the video brings closer to the surface (but not all the way) the latent concerns of Hitchcock’s films.  Indeed, much of what is so mysterious and compelling about The Birds is that, while the film seems somehow to know why they attack, it is not that it is unwilling to tell us the answer, but that it seems incapable of doing so.  By making the incoherence still more obvious, Duarte prompts even the most innocent viewer to wonder about motivation – not the birds’, but Hitchcock’s.

There has been spirited debate in videographic circles about whether a scholarly video essay should be able to stand alone, and whether an accompanying statement that ‘explains’ the work is something of a cheat, letting the maker off the hook from showing what they have to say.  Duarte’s video and statement work effectively (and necessarily) together, with the former pulling into relief the relevant qualities of incoherence, and the statement offering a provocative explanation for Hitchcock’s motivation (something the director himself was likely not consciously aware of).  Duarte suggests that we understand the film as a displacement of his (traumatic) memories, an oblique allegory of another horror.  

My initial response to the video, which I referenced in the first sentence of this review, indicates that Duarte’s reworking of the film’s material is effectively generating just the knowledge effect he intended.  He uses the aesthetic force of his object of study to show something about it, bringing our feelings of perplexity about the work into greater (but still very much soft) focus.  Thus, there are three object layers – the film, the video, the statement – moving from lesser to greater clarity.  Or maybe the middle layer – the video itself – is both less and more legible than the film: it is the hinge-point between film and statement.  We can imagine this sequence in another way: Hitchcock’s film, Duarte’s interpretation, and finally his video, which performs the interpretation via various audio-visual means.  To make the statement more clearly in the video itself would have seemed a betrayal of The Birds – and of the potential of videographic scholarly forms. 

Review 2: Invite resubmission with major revisions of practical work and/or written statement.

Both the video and the written text feature fascinating ideas and interventions into the material, and there is much potential here; however, I would not recommend publication of this work in its current form, as I do not feel that these ideas coalesce in a compelling enough way to constitute a significant contribution to the field. In particular, the piece does not constitute a substantial enough contribution beyond what has already been established by the previous piece by the author, published at [in]Transition a few years ago, and that the current piece is in conversation with. 

Some notes on the video:

The primary manipulation of the material – the removal of human presence, and the use of still images overlayed against audio from the film – is impressive, well executed, effective, affective, and thought-provoking. But this much was already done in the author’s previous piece. As for the new interventions in this piece: the reinscription, within the manipulated still images, of the moving afterimages, in superimposition, is highly interesting, and opens up some productive potential. However, not all of its applications feel as powerful or as justified as others, and perhaps it would be better to apply it more sparingly (on a technical level, applying this intervention to non-static shots does not work as well). The segment depicting the attack of the school children is powerful and effective – this segment could probably be reworked into a compelling piece of scholarship on its own. Structurally, however, the piece as a whole does not make use of the potential of these fascinating new interventions; in my opinion, this is in large part due to the piece’s length and adherence to the overall narrative trajectory of the film. Given that the author states their interventions as “transforming the very fabric of the images rather than just their narrative structure and sequence”, such adherence to the narrative sequence of the film seems counter-productive. The images could, in theory, be more radically reedited (and perhaps edited down somewhat), maximizing the impact of the new digital manipulations. 

Some notes on the written statement:

There are portions of the written statement that don’t seem to be in line with what the actual piece does; or, put another way, the video simply does not do the work that is suggested by parts of the written statement. While the more philosophical discussion of media images is very much in dialogue with the video, the relation to contemporary/historical events, which is fascinating in its own right, does not seem to be supported by what the actual piece does with the materials (likewise, the mention of Hitchcock’s involvement in the 1945 anti-Nazi documentary seems out of place). I could imagine a different video that does speak to these ideas – but in its current form, I think the written statement should be reconceived to fit the existing video.

The statement opens with the question “Why do the birds attack?” – but this question (which, moreover, is not a particularly new or unique question to pose regarding the film) does not seem to be answered by the video nor the statement; it seems to mostly serve as a framing for the “Context” section of the statement, which, as noted before, should be reworked. I would thus recommend reworking the introduction of the statement as well.

Likewise, while the description of the “dehumanized gaze” of the camera is very compelling – the conclusion that this somehow transforms “the camera’s gaze into that of birds” is not adequately argued or established. While this argument could be further developed, I’m not sure I would recommend pursuing it – but rather rephrasing what the piece in fact does (again, I’d recommend staying with the more abstract definition of a “dehumanized gaze” instead).

Additionally, and importantly, the written statement makes no reference to existing works of – and writings on – videographic criticism that touch on similar subject matters, themes, and methodologies. The discussion would benefit from more engagement with the field; among others, I’d suggest some of the works and writings of Johannes Binotto – who has touched on digital image manipulation, working with still images, and Hitchcock (and The Birds in particular: https://transferences.org/videoessays/performative-deformative-video-essays/metaleptic-attack/); and “The Apartment” by David Verdeure’s: https://www.filmscalpel.com/the-apartment/ which, much like Duarte, digitally removes human presence from the frame; Viktoria Paranyuk’s more recent “Still Lives of Jeanne Dielman” also comes to mind in this context: https://tecmerin.uc3m.es/project/still-lives-of-jeanne-dielman-an-audiovisual-essay/?lang=en. Other scholarly debates on the digital manipulation of images – including but by no means limited to Laura Mulvey’s “Death 24x a Second” – could also contribute to the discussion.

As pointed out, while both the video and the written statement are rife with potential and creativity, in its current form the piece does not actualize that potential in a way that constitutes a substantial enough addition to the author’s previous piece; and the video and the statement seem at times at odds with one another. Should the author like to pursue publication, these materials could be reworked in a number of ways – whether following some of my suggestions above or in other ways – that would both set it apart from the original piece it currently seems too grounded in, and enable more cohesive dialogues between the two versions, and between the video and the supporting text.

All reviews refer to original research statements which have been edited in response.