Third or Imperfect Cinema

January 9, 2013

“Just a short time ago it would have seemed like a Quixotic adventure in the colonised, neocolonised, or even the imperialist nations themselves to make any attempt to create films of decolonisation that turned their back on or actively opposed the System. Until recently, film had been synonymous with spectacle or entertainment: in a word, it was one more consumer good. At best, films succeeded in bearing witness to the decay of bourgeois values and testifying to social injustice. As a rule, films only dealt with effect, never with cause; it was cinema of mystification or anti-historicism. It was surplus value cinema. Caught up in these conditions, films, the most valuable tool of communication of our times, were destined to satisfy only the ideological and economic interests of the owners of the film industry, the lords of the world film market, the great majority of whom were from the United States.
Was it possible to overcome this situation? How could the problem of turning out liberating films be approached when costs came to several thousand dollars and the distribution and exhibition channels were in the hands of the enemy? How could the continuity of work be guaranteed? How could the public be reached? How could System-imposed repression and censorship be vanquished? These questions, which could be multiplied in all directions, led and still lead many people to scepticism or rationalisation: ‘revolutionary cinema cannot exist before the revolution’; ‘revolutionary films have been possible only in the liberated countries’; ‘without the support of revolutionary political power, revolutionary cinema or art is impossible.’ The mistake was due to taking the same approach to reality and films as did the bourgeoisie. The models of production, distribution, and exhibition continued to be those of Hollywood precisely because, in ideology and politics, films had not yet become the vehicle for a clearly drawn differentiation between bourgeois ideology and politics.” – Fernando Solanas and Octavio Getino

read on

“Revolutionary cinema […] can only be collective, just as the revolution itself is collective” (Jorge Sanjinés (1983) Problems of form and content in revolutionary cinema)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

De Nederlandse Klimaatbeweging

Wij zijn niet te stoppen, klimaatverandering wel!

Bijvoet Tegemoet

Natuur en plant in Nederland

Bladvormen

een sub-site van Les Simons

somaexperiments

Just another WordPress.com site

CircleEcology

Voedselbossen en agroecologie

Conferințele de Vară de la Telciu

Telciu Summer Conferences

Freestate SWOMP

Rustenburgerstraat 438 - 440, Amsterdam

Longreads

The best longform stories on the web

The Applied Ecologist's blog

Bridging the gap between researchers, and practitioners, and policymakers

Duurzame Pleinen

Werken aan eerlijke en groene pleinen

Human Rights Online Philippines

Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Philippines through Information Resources Online

The Feminist Rag

Surfing the Feminist Ocean & Decolonizing its Waves

Appalachian Center for Agroforestry

Rewilding permaculture one homestead at a time

the thai chronicles

You my friend are still so young: or what I learned after graduation

Onderweg

Ago quod agis

rock roads

Every road leads to rock

Synchronicity and Subculture

Musings, meanderings and mischief by Cyrus 'Sirius' Bozorgmehr

%d bloggers like this: