Moses and Aaron as an object of Marxist reflection

Jean-Marie Straub and Daniele Huillet Interviewed

from Jump Cut, no. 12/13, 1976, pp. 61-64

(...) In Paris nowadays nobody talks about anything but the deconstruction of cinematic language. A revolution in cinematographic language is what they look for. But that’s clearly not enough at all. There are two good examples now of films which reconcile the demands of critics and the intellectual bourgeoisie in all of Paris, the thinking and the non-thinking. These films by Fassbinder (FIRST RIGHT OF FREEDOM or FOX) and Techiné (FRENCH PROVINCIAL) are saluted by both the left and the right. For example, in (the weekly paper) France Dimanche, they wrote that the films of Techiné have gone further than those of Godard. Techiné is a guy who is not stupid. He’s even partly conscious, and has some talent. But what he’s done is made a film designed to seduce the whole world, which can therefore reconcile everyone in the world with everyone else. But anyway, this film is an example that has revolutionized cinematic language. There’s an obvious problem here, that such a “revolution” doesn't go far enough. It’s indispensable, but not sufficient, a “necessary but not sufficient condition,” as in algebra. (...) I think these films find their audience in dividing. One divides the audience, and there is the difference between the films that I make and those of, for example, Techiné: One reconciles the world, the other divides it. It is the dividing lines that make one’s public. And the dividing lines end up in one way or another being lines which correspond to the lines of class, and class struggle. I believe that, or, I hope that.