27 February, 2008

10 THESES for A NEW CINEMA

I.

Friendship, above all else, can save cinema.


II.

Cinema is only dead as a structure. The cinema as a building is dead. The New Cinema will be much too fast and ubiquitous to be housed in any one location.

III.

Any person who picks up a movie camera and does not understand they are committing a political act is misguided. To enter an arena like moviemaking, with a repertoire that includes the likes of The Eternal Jew, Man with a Movie Camera, Jaws, Roger and Me, The Passion of the Christ, and even something along the lines of The O’Reilly Factor, the idea of compiling series of moving pictures, while not creating something political, is improbable. While not all these films are perhaps political in content, they all undoubtedly add to the mythology of how visuals are to be presented and understood. A fork is thus presented: One can create a work in the style of the past, which is owned by the bourgeois, or one can forge ahead, reinventing cinema in a way that is satisfying solely to the individual. Those who choose the past add to the empire of the bourgeois, and contribute to politics of the wealthy and elite; those who choose reinvention create something almost unintelligibly current: A new language.

IV.

A static cinema acts as though the ways of the past are the ways of today. Therefore, the static cinema is a cinema of lies. The new cinema relishes in the infinite interpretations of the now.

V.

The idea of an avant garde in the New Cinema is unnecessary. The New Cinema will be a world-wide dialog between filmmakers, as well as a movement of local neighborhoods. As moving making costs continue to decline, depending on modern patrons like Disney and Universal will become as absurd as seeking a painting patronage with the Catholic Church. The new movie will no longer be an interpretation of a shooting script, but an interpretation of life. Every movie will therefore be cutting edge, because every movie will be about the highly personal now.

VI.

The visual aesthetics of today which maintain cultural capital with the public at large are mirrored to a T with our current administration. That is to say our current system of understanding visuals comes from the top down in every way: from fashion to film. A dramatic breakdown of this strictly esoteric model is imperative. This is to be understood to a point beyond a mere rebirth. To embrace the modernist mantra of “to be of one’s own time” in this case seems to be entirely absurd. To accept our own time is to accept that false wars are reasonable, and that genocide in certain countries is sufficiently fine. The New Cinema in this sense is not a reinterpretation of the cinema of the past, but rather a complete amnesia. It is a starting over, birthed into a new consciousness altogether.

VII.

If one can imagine a Marcel Duchamp sans cynicism, one can imagine the New Cinema. That is: Yes! Indeed this must be cinema!

VIII.

No two films in the New Cinema could ever be identical, for no moment in time could ever duplicate itself. This is quite contrary to the static cinema under the power of corporate monopoly. This system of money and authority demands a movie be a duplicate of previously established aesthetics. The marginalization and pacifying of the audience is the static cinemas objective; a celebration and ongoing empirical study of human complexities is the New Cinema’s goal.

IX.

I don’t suppose the New Cinema could be considered art anymore than a well informed conversation between two old friend or colleagues. To apply a label with such archaic connotations like art to the New Cinema would of course be left to the discretion of the individual. It seems to me that art is something that exists with bookends as a rule. Picasso painted a picture, and then hung it up at the museum. The ensuing post cards and posters further proclaimed the finality of the work. I see no reason why a movie should ever be finished. Life never finishes (in the sense that it goes on for everyone else), so in this sense, the new cinema perhaps could be championed as the ultimate art into life.

X.

The New Cinema can do nothing but move! move! move! The in vogue style of today will be that of the fascists tomorrow. It is imperative that the new cinema always be at least three days onward.


26 February, 2008

for the fans (a haiku)

i do not know how
to properly utilize
the semicolon;

07 February, 2008

whose campaign is it?

dear [all, maybe 5] reader[s],

I rarely get political with this blog. In fact, I normally reserve this online space for unusual dreams, or anecdotes of traveling escapes. However, something was announced online yesterday that baffles me.

Senator Hillary Clinton has loaned her own campaign five million dollars.

What I truly enjoy about Senator Barack Obama's campaign is that it's funded by the people. 1/3 of his donors have given less than $200. Only 1/3 of his donors have maxed out their donations. In Mrs. Clinton's campaign, 14% of the donors gave less than $200, while about half of the donors are maxed out. Yet Obama is putting up record breaking numbers. Over 30 million in January. Already over three million since Tuesday, February 5th. Mr. Obama's campaign is one funded by, to use an excruciating cliche, the people.

Here's why I find this wonderful. When I type the name Barack Obama into the computer, it is instantly met with a red, squiggly underline. On the contrary, Hillary Clinton's name is part of our cultural lexicon. She is the McDonald's to the obese; the Jesus to Christianity; the Bill Clinton to the Democratic Party. In the same way that George W. Bush was taken seriously in 2000 because of his father, George H.W. Bush's previous presidency, in the same way John Q. Adams was taken seriously in 1825 because of his father John Adams, Mrs. Clinton has been viewed practically as an incumbent in this race for the presidency. Mr. Obama has no legacy, or family-branding to depend on. In effect, his campaign is setting a precedent that once again in America anyone can rise to the top. It's no longer about being part of a financial dynasty like the Rockefellers, or the Kennedy or the Clinton or the Bush family; it's about ideas, spirit, and character.

Incumbent, by definition in The American Heritage Dictionary, means "Imposed as an obligation or duty." Although I'll admit in our post-9/11 world, Americans have had quite the love affair with political impositions coming from the top down, it seems that there is a movement of change happening, and while Barack Obama may not be the catalyst, he is undoubtedly the figurehead. His donor patterns are enough of a citation to understand this, let alone his performance this past super-Tuesday where he won 13 states to Mrs. Clinton's 8, in addition to the day's dead heat for delegates. People, in massive numbers, are rallying around a single idea: Together, we can.

Here's something I find compelling, and worth considering:

After Mr. Obama won the Iowa caucuses, the first words he said were, "Look what you did!"

After the New Hampshire primaries, Mrs. Clinton's first words were, "I come to you with a very full heart."

To wrap this up, to bring it all together: What does Hillary Clinton's self-donation of five million dollars add up to? I hesitate to be so cynical and finger-pointer-y to call her out and say she's a self-centered, self righteous, pseudo-do-good-er, who's looking to fulfill her own self-prophesy of being in charge of this country, because I don't necessarily think that's true. But it does bring up this very interesting point: If the people aren't supporting her, and she has to put five million of her own money into the campaign to stay afloat -- who's she running for? Who's she going to be looking after when she is in the White House?

I assume she'll probably be working to repay that loan.

This is a reason I support Barack Obama for president.

Consider it my official endorsement.

All five of you who still take time out of your days to read this...

and here's my source for some of the financial numbers above: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080207/D8UL4SPO3.html

06 February, 2008

ugh

i accidentally put too much water in my oatmeal this morning. it really ruined my breakfast.