May 17, 1968
Considering that a free cinema and television don’t exist in the current state;
Considering that a tiny minority of authors and technicians have access to the means of production and expression;
Considering that the cinema today has a capitol mission to fulfill and is gagged at all levels in the current system:
The directors, technicians, actors, producers, film and television critics determined to put an end to the present state of affairs, have decided to convoke the Estates General of Cinema.
We invite all of you to participate in these Estates general, whose date will be specified later.
– The Revolutionary Committee of Cinema-Television
published in Cahiers du Cinéma, August 1968; via
17 mai 2008
May 17, 1968
Inscription à :
Publier les commentaires (Atom)
4 commentaires:
Considering that a "free" cinema is available on the internet;
Considering that a significant number of authors and technicians have access to the means of production and expression;
Considering that the internet today espouses a democratic mission to fulfill and is "open" at all levels in the current system:
I have asked, why is the work on YouTube NOT revolutionary?
I suggest a significant critique of the present state of affairs, and invite all of you to participate in such conversation, on this or other media blogs around the world.
– MP:me, a Revolutionary Critic of YouTube at
aljean.wordpress.com
What constitutes a "free" cinema?
How do we define "the means of production and expression"?
I'd argue that a "free" cinema is a democratic cinema - however - the word "democratic" itself also poses problems. Democracy is to be distinguished from cacophony; a plurality of voices is not democratic, and can even be anti-democratic when it works in the interest of oligarchy. The present pretenses to democracy in both political and cultural forms are distractions from the fundamentally undemocratic nature of our society.
The "means of production and expression" now available to the vast majority of authors and technicians are imitations of the "means of production and expression" rather than their true form. We have to consider that a means of expression includes distribution, and also the ability of a work to enter the marketplace of ideas - which of course is limited to commodities sold by those with access to greater means. Counterexamples such as Loose Change seem to me to be products of/for an already-existent but minuscule counter-market, but the existence of pockets of resistance does not effectively contradict assertions of a broadly triumphant media imperialism.
It is the "democratic" nature of YouTube that makes it nonrevolutionary, precisely because it imitates the form of "democracy" that forms the basis of our political system(s). The possibility of revolutionary content or frameworks is dependent on the achievement of true democracy, which by necessity entails liberations and collaborations all but outlawed by the present forms of "democratic" systems design, be they political or technological.
A "free" cinema should not be bound by advertisements.
Access to cameras, editing, and distribution are only a first step.
I too agree that what we see is not democratic, but to my mind (outside your excellent points, dave), are the power of censorship, the framework of the corporate, and a numbers game that gets real people nowhere.
alex
oooo! I love a good manifesto!
-Whitney
dearjesus.wordpress.com
Enregistrer un commentaire