The Aura of Reality

The Gleaners and I, a film by Agnes Varda deals with the issue of gleaning in modern day France. The film defines gleaning as the act of collecting that which is no longer wanted by society during the production of a product. Originally, as illustrated through The Gleaners, by Millet, gleaning was the act of collecting food in order to feed the families of the poor in France. However, today gleaning can mean collecting any items that are no longer wanted by society or people, including “trash.” In her film she addresses people who are gleaning for food, for appliances, and for any items that can be reused and recycled.
Varda links waste to politics of gender, class, and the body specifically. The body makes an appearance in the film most notably through the presence of her hand, always appearing in frames, wrinkled and aged. She is addressing the idea of what we choose to label as unwanted and no longer useable. Her hand is a metaphor for the very idea of gleaning; while older women come to occupy bodies that are no longer desired in society, so too do items that are still perfectly good – and useful. The heart shaped potato, the abandoned vineyard of juicy grapes, apples in the orchard, all are examples of products that are deemed valueless, but in fact are not, mere casualties of capitalistic labeling. She ushers the viewer to reexamine death and decay and to view it as transformation – to find the beauty where we have been conditioned to see only waste.
She also addresses class in the film. This is done through examining which bodies are allowed to occupy what space, a poignant example of this in the film were the gypsies. These are not desirable members of society. They do not have a permanent residence, therefore they cannot pay property taxes, they do not hold 9-5 “productive” jobs, and they glean as a main means for sustenance. One of the women made the comment that they were once again being uprooted because the mayor did not want them there. This raises the question for me of not only what spaces do which bodies get to occupy, but of why they were being relocated. The space in which they were living had no electricity and as far as the government knew no running water as they had “stolen” it from a nearby stream. Who would really want to live there?? On top of everything it was locate next to a freeway. This was not desired land; rather they were being marginalized and relocated because they as members of society were not desired.
Varda also raises the question of gender. The film asks what happens when rural and agrarian practices are upset by the fast changing industrial world? How does this affect gender roles? As Millet shows us gleaning was once done by women and now it is being done by everyone. Now that class denotes action and not gender how does that shape the actions of gleaning?
Ultimately this film becomes about the ability of capitalism to produce bodies that do not benefit from its system, yet vehemently uphold it. How is this done? Why is it that the grocer poured bleach on the trashcan of food? How did he benefit from this action? I would say that he didn’t. He was not gaining in any way from spitefully depriving food to those who could not afford it. In fact, he even went so far as to get the “law” involved. Yet he felt a need to uphold the system. This is a great example of the way in which capitalism has trained us to think and function.
Lastly I think it is important to address Benjamin further. I found it interesting that he was brought up because while he does advocate the concept of “Author and Producer” - basically the innovation of production, which then inspires consumers into producers, which then ties producers as a proletariat revolution, and counters the politics of fascist art. However, he also discusses the idea of the “aura” of art - the difference between viewing the original art piece, and the reproduction. This is the concept that when we view an art piece in person it carries a presence that cannot be conveyed through film or in any reproduction. I find this interesting as film in itself is a reproduction of “reality.” Therefore what kind of aura does it carry and through its reproduction what kind of lenses does it construct for us to see “reality.”
I am choosing to link this to an image of Andy Warhols Brillow Boxes. In this art piece he challenges what it means to reuse household items, but also what it means to reconstruct an item through a different “lens.”

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/CCTP738/Warhol-BrilloBoxes-1969.jpg