September 12, 2005



There is no such thing as anti-cinema, all cinema is equally enthusiastic. I believe this is the case because technology requires belief to transform itself from a useful gadget into a meaningful entity. Without belief, cinema is only a trick.

You are watching an extremely violent movie. You can feel your central nervous system tightening as you watch. That is why you prefer theatre to cinema. Because theatre doesn’t affect the central nervous system in such a direct and insidious manner. Cinema is like a dream. It is projected onto the inside of your retina. Theatre is more real. And as human beings we require reality. Because without reality there is no basis for moral and ethical decisions.

Cinema is a horrible victim of its own success. The more people who are deeply moved, enchanted and affected by something the more money they will pour into it and the more money they pour into it the more that money will dictate the parameters of its existence. Therefore, movies are terrible because people love them and not, as is generally assumed, the other way around. /// The filmmaker, like anyone on the receiving end of a terrible love, also faces a great responsibility. As the object of devotion he/she must also realise that the audience, like any devoted lover, is willing to undergo any degree of dejection or humiliation in service of their love. Films may pummel them or even ignore them but they will always come back for more. /// Of course, today people do not go to the movies in order to be moved, enchanted or affected. They go only to have something to do, to pass the time or perhaps have something to talk about at the office, some proverbial hook on which to hang all there instantly arrived at opinions. Movies today are a direct response to the fact that people don’t have anything better to do. A distraction from everything including themselves.


No comments: