Filme

Kategorie: Filme

Veröffentlicht am

Offret

OFFRET

If you water a dead tree every day, one day it will live. It is a very beautiful story, but it is suddenly interrupted. And Alexander decides to make a sacrifice. A sacrifice so that everything remains as it was. When we read Heraclitus, we know that things will never be the way they were. But it’s not so much about Heraclitus as it is about how unexpected events change people’s lives. Sounds banal. And it’s about war. Because war brutally changes people’s behaviour. Also banal. And some (quite a few, if you look around Europe) would be prepared to make a sacrifice. So that everything stays as it was. They just don’t realize that sacrifice brings nothing. And that the river of Heraclitus is still flowing. 

Offret. By Andrei Tarkovsky. Not in the cinema. But maybe you can stream it.

Veröffentlicht am

About a film. And different perceptions of reality.

About a film. And different perceptions of reality.

Sometimes realities are created. From expectations. Maybe through influences. Or simply by expectation and experience. And sometimes we are told about perspectives. But in truth they are realities. One is Elisabeth Sparkle’s in The Substance. The viewer has a completely different reality. Who, quite by chance, heard in October that the film had received an excellent rating. But what are ratings? The viewer’s reality. Maybe.

It could have been very good. And it was. The film. Up to a certain point, it tells of two different realities that intertwine and, after a certain point, also fight each other. People who are trapped in their own realities sometimes tend to fight. It was about another reality that the director maybe didn’t work out so well. Or she did, but it wasn’t visible. What is that reality, the struggle for youth in the face of the fact that we are all going to die? But that’s not what I wanted to write about. It’s not about the existentialism of the film or the question of metaphysics. It’s about dying. What is beautiful for the Japanese. And what has no place in our reality.

So what about the different realities in The Substance? Well, almost everything is about them. For people who believe in only one reality, it will still be exciting. People who are used to living with different realities will enjoy it.
And what about the reality of rating? Nothing. You shouldn’t be influenced by other people’s realities. See for yourself. At the cinema you trust.

This text is created by humans. The pics are not. 

Veröffentlicht am

You are still there

You are still there after the rain

What is the movie about? There is the classical way of film criticism. It consists of counting the minutes, and the subjects that take up the most time in a movie are the subjects of the movie. I think in this case it would be trees. A movie about trees? But that answers the question. The movie is slow. And maybe we would say, well, yes, Asian cinema is slow per se. But that’s not the point here. It’s also compelling. In the discussion after the screening, we also talked about the fact that the movie had scary parts.

    1. the Boredom

But that’s not what I felt at all. It’s more the way time passes. And anyway, what is time? “The only thing that promises time is a clock” or something like that. One of the lines in the movie. And in general. Sentences. The movie, which shows trees, rain, and the sky, lives from the sentences that are spoken. Even if you’re not allowed to speak. Or are allowed to sit with their backs to each other.

2. philosophy

“To look at art is also to enjoy the space, the air, not just the picture”. Another sentence from the film. But there are many more. And the heat and boredom suddenly become a reflection of life. And about the world. And also about philosophy. And also about philosophy. And it doesn’t matter which. Because it’s about thinking and not about following a direction.

3. plot

What is the movie about? Well. I don’t know. Maybe the heat of summer in Japan. About the old woman and the little girl and all the trees I saw. Or maybe it’s about something else. All I know is that the movie captivated me. And I will think about it for a long time.

They are still there after the rain
By Pan Junhua

2022

 

Veröffentlicht am

Yannick

Yannick

What is art?

The question is reminiscent of Walter Benjamin. But we are not going to deal with it. The question posed in the film Yannick is also reminiscent of the fundamental question of capitalism and the consumer. Because what does it mean to consume art? Or rather, what does it mean if I am not satisfied with the art offered to me?

Quentin Dupieux poses this question in his film Yannock. Or he asks many questions. But we won’t write about all of them.

Art • Mombasa • Kenya

What is art?

There are many ways to answer this question. But that’s not what we want to write about here. More interesting for us is that Dupieux’s movie reminds us of it. What is theater? There are people who march unsuspectingly through the European Biennial. Later, they post pictures of it on social media or send photos to their friends. And they are proud to have been at the Venice Biennale. Or the Documenta. But what did they see? What did they experience? Was it good? We never find out. The experience of art is to have been there. And to have experienced “art” or what someone understands it to be. 

What is the meaning of art?

Of course, we could think about what art wants to achieve. We could go back in time and take an anthropological approach. We could look at religious, social, and other meanings. And we could also think about the fact that Europeans, having discovered that you can make a lot of money with “art” (if we are not mistaken, this idea was born in Amsterdam, but perhaps much earlier, in one of the Roman villas). In the end, we may come to the conclusion that art, in its present form, should entertain. We as viewers, or rather consumers, should, well, consume art. In the end, we don’t care what ideas the artist had when creating the work. We are supposed to… be entertained. Surely there are other meanings of art in society. Especially in such a complicated society that calls itself European. There are still the political, religious and aesthetic aspects. But the consumer should consume. A good consumer is always good for the economy. 

The Movie

The movie would be told quickly. But what is Wikipedia for? Despite the rather boring description on Wikipedia, the movie touches on exactly these metaphysical problems. What happens to the viewer when the art shown to him does not meet his expectations? Is he now a consumer? Do they have “rights”? Like a consumer who can simply return the goods? Or have they simply not understood the demands of the creator? What happens if he disagrees with the work of art? What happens to a bad piece?
What is the point of art?
Dupieux does not give answers. He asks questions, in a rather short film. “Yannick. Just look for it in the cinemas near you. Or on the Internet. And think about the fact that you might not like the movie.

Veröffentlicht am

About a movie. A bomb. And not about responsibility.

About a movie. A bomb. And not about responsibility. And about Oppenheimer.

Pic by DALL•E

1. The art

Maya Deren said that Hollywood (and basically what we define as cinema) was just a cheap copy of theater. Cinema had not seized the opportunity to develop a new language, a new form. It stayed where the theater had been. It told “stories.” But precisely the form, that is, a mere depiction of reality, is, let’s say, conservative. And even if we use the best technology, even if image and sound become real, it remains so. We are looking at reality. Nothing more, nothing less.

2. The film

So if we say that a film is a work of art, we say just that. That the depiction of reality is successful. Of course, the director may have deliberately chosen a part of reality to show us. So we can ask ourselves why he chose that particular part. The story might be interesting. Or characters that the film wanted to show us. What we give up is the closeness, the unique perhaps, what the theater offers us. But the film remains a poor rather than better representation of the play.

3. The statement

So what remains? Especially in the case of a film, whose model is the story? Of course, we can say that the choice of reality has a message (Europeans like intellectual superstructures, sometimes a film is just a film and has no message). Maybe it is. At least the film did not leave any moral reflection. Since Ingarden already dealt with the ontic grounds of responsibility. Nolan may have been able to partially approach Ingarden’s thoughts, but he failed to provide deeper thoughts.

4 The totality

Perhaps it is the only thing that a contemporary film can then adorn itself with as a work of art. I would recommend watching the film, if, in the theater. Here, Nolan has actually managed to integrate the image and sound, how shall I put it, not important, but still as an essential part of the narrative. Sure, you can watch the film at home. But the effect of the statement (the film has one, but the film is not about responsibility) can be enjoyed exclusively in the cinema. At home, it would be like watching King Lear streamed on an old TV rather than in the theater.

So go to the theaters. Oppenheimer is still running.

Veröffentlicht am

Ghost Dance

A movie. Ghosts. And Philosophy. But also anthropology.

And immediately the first question. Why anthropology? Perhaps because of the music. Or the thought of ghosts. I don’t know.

And the second question right after that. What do we expect from a philosophical film? At least we don’t expect an ocean and radio waves. And we might not expect the search for ghosts in a Parisian restaurant either.

And where is the dance? The whole film seems to be the dance. Seems less to tell a story but dancing, moving, sometimes wildly and sometimes quite calmly on the path of the ghosts.
So it is a dance. Not a film. Maybe a ghost. Check it out. Or dance it. So the ghosts can come.

Ghost Dance. 1983. by Ken McMullen

Veröffentlicht am

Dulpokanova

24’58 on the Way to Dulpokanova

We proudly present the movie 24’58 on the Way to Dulpokanova by Yu Miao.

1. The Space

Heidegger stated, we only can exist “in the world”. If there is no “world”, no being is possible. It means on the one side: we will never break through the horizon of knowledge (the horizon of epistemology, if you prefer this term). But the question that arises is one about this side of the horizon. The question about this world. If we examined it (the world in which being is), we would be able to determine different worlds. A warlike one, a boring one, which is perhaps composed of everyday life. In her movie, 24’58 on the Way to Dulpokanova, Yu Miao explores the possibility of another world. The possibility of a world without communication. And at the same time asks the universal question, in what way the absence of communication possibly prevents the being from being?

2. The characters

But it’s not just the characters. Characters are beings in a world. In Yu Miao’s movie, the lack of communication includes the people around as well as the equipment around. The monitors, the space in which the film is set. The whole world, where beings have to be “in” is constructed without communication. The world. What does it tell us? 

In architecture, there is the so-called “International Style”.

On the one hand, we would say that it is meaningless. On the other hand, it reminds me of Warburg’s Mnemosyne album. Of the quintessence of the album. Of the question of how we shape our spaces, how we shape our environment. In Yu Miao’s film, space is deeply human in another way. Because, as I described earlier, she reminds us of humanity. Of what we all have in common. 

3. The symbols (the world)

She seeks universalism. Not only in the people, not only in the characters she shows. 

The world where no communication takes place, where speechless characters are waiting for a flight to Dulpokanova, this world is a universal one. 

As already mentioned, Yu Miao doesn´t seek universalism in terms of Kant. Rather in terms of anthropology. She seeks artifacts, for architecture, for that magical something that is common to us all. And she finds it. The silent world is our world. It´s a human world. And a world constructed by us. By humans.

In this sense, Dulpokanova would be a kind of horizontal Mnemosyne, in which Yu Miao explores what an international, I don’t want to say “impersonal”, but kind of true, style looks like. 

In the film, the characters, three young women (but food also plays an important role, language, the alphabet, etc.) move in a silent space that we… yes, would call international, but mean, again, universal. Which is very clean… Almost like a Zen garden. Empty. And full of people. Speechless. This is the world we are in. Without which the being is not.   

4. The movie

My concern here is the plot. And about how the film is structured. And it does remind me of the music from Tenniscoats. How are we supposed to portray the lack of communication? Especially since, as Schulz von Thun says, we are constantly communicating even if we don’t say anything. And how to captivate the viewer? Especially one whose attention span of eternally long 3 seconds? Yu Miao succeeds masterfully. Especially at the end of the film. Especially in this world. A world without communication. Our world. 

Here you can watch it until 26.02.2023 (external link to Vimeo)

Here you can find more about Yu Miao’s movies.

Veröffentlicht am

#streetpunxofyangon

Punk | Stucturalism | Phenomenology | A movie

1. Anthropological structuralism

Gilles Deleuze once said that structuralism precisely compares structures and then tries to draw conclusions. We can compare a table with a chair and find that both are square. We can likewise compare South African Amapiano music with European house and find that the beats are similar. If in the case of Amapiano we can still trace the origin, the comparison of the tables and chairs is… empty. 

But even if we traced the history of the Amapiano, it did not tell us anything about the music itself, its use, and why it is also very popular in Kenya. 

Anthropological structuralism (to describe it simply) does not compare tables but cultural phenomena, and cultural practices with each other. We can then see that the people of Siberia move in very similar ways to the Sioux when they dance. We can also compare the hat fashion of 70 years in Uganda with that in Denmark. We may even find something astonishing. The question is, what does it bring us? 

Structuralism constantly forgot the context. Or, as Deleuze put it, error. Whereas I wouldn’t talk about errors in cultural adaptations. Even if many punks invoked the purity of their movement to distinguish themselves from the others.

2. Punk

In his essay “The Assault on Culture,” Stewart Home describes punk as a rather short-lived subculture of Britain’s big cities. Inspired by the so-called skinhead novels, punk remains a movement without great intellectual pretensions. Basically, punk can be compared to the subculture of soccer fans. 

It was only much later that Class War found punk as a means of anarchist expression. But by then punk was long dead. Perhaps the Oi! movement was the last remnant of punk. However, Oi! was more of a primitive male culture that was primarily about drinking beer. Or, as “Exploited” put it, about “sex and violence”. 

3. Phenomenology

I can’t remember who said it. A Japanese phenomenologist described the phenomenon of the epistemic horizon (not only him, but here we find a nice reflection on how Europeans – in the sense of Viveiros the Castro Europeans – react to the unknown). 

We can also say that our brain reacts like this. In any case, when we see the unknown, we try to infer the known. 

And here is an anthropological reflection. Europeans (and I still do not mean only the inhabitants of Europe) always try to compare all cultural phenomena with their own culture. The reason for this may be that Europeans are convinced of the superiority of their culture (wrongly, the European culture is rather primitive). 

In other words, when Europeans see people with a mohawk hairstyle, dressed in leather jackets and boots on other ends of the world, they immediately think of one thing. They must be punks. The idea of comparing contexts doesn’t even occur to them. They name a cultural phenomenon, a cultural practice after their own, rather boring “culture” and call what they see: Punk.   

4. Cultural appropriation

The people of Yucatan have adopted some of the religious practices of the Nahuatl for themselves. There has even been a discussion as to whether the proverbial aggressiveness of the Quiche did not originate with the Nahuatl. I do not want to have that discussion here. What interests me is the fact that when cultural practices are adopted from another culture, there is always a shift. An error.

If we understand punk as drinking beer, making music, and “No Future,” it doesn’t automatically mean that everyone who does that is also a punk. With adaptations of cultural practices, there are always shifts, changes, precisely, adaptations to one’s own culture, to one’s own context. 

It is rather difficult for an average European to understand this context, to think about it. 

Can we speak of the same practice in the case of a cultural adaptation, in the case of similarities?

Theoretically, I could adopt the rites of the Masai. It will not only make me a Maasai. It has no meaning because I probably wouldn’t think about the context. By the way, it is similar to yoga in Europe (which, free from any spiritual practice, rather reminds of stretching exercises). People are happy to do yoga. In truth, they practice stretching exercises with adapted intellectual, European superstructure. 

5. Punk in Myanmar

Is there punk in Myanmar? Of course not. It is rather wishful thinking on the part of the protagonist. In fact, the youth in Myanmar, in the city of Yangon, have adopted elements of what we would call Oi Punk. Without all the context of the Oi movement.
On the other hand, we can’t say for sure. But if we use Western glasses, if we put the movement in Myanmar in a context, like the protagonist of the film, we destroy the movement and its beauty. And only see something European again. Another H&M store or Mcdonalds’.

6. #streetpunxofyangon

The film brilliantly illustrates the inability of different cultures to understand each other. On the one hand, we have a director trying to get money for a film about the “punks” in Myanmar. We see little of the punks themselves. 

However, she is always running as if against the wall. The various attempts to get into Myanmar do not succeed. 

Street Punx are a wonderful, ideal metaphor for the fact that we may never understand other cultures. In the end, the film’s protagonist is more concerned with herself and money than with the “punks” and their culture. She sees them through the screen of the PC in countless Skype phone calls. She cannot get closer to them. The screen is the end of possibilities. 

It is a very important film that reminds us that we, the Europeans, should worry about the other parts of the world rather than thinking about ourselves and our problems. It is a mirror that, held up by Maja Holzinger, shows us the ridiculousness of what we call “European culture”. 

In the end, no one will travel to Myanmar. That’s good. After all, it was we, Europeans, who bloodily exploited Myanmar, imposed our culture, and then, left it poor. It is good that now we do not want to explain to Myanmar people their own cultural adaptation. 

Here (external link) you can read more about the movie.

And. It’s not a movie about Africa. But I thought African dancers would fit here.

Veröffentlicht am

 The Elusive Joy of Labor

The Elusive Joy of Labor

We proudly present the movie “The Elusive Joy of Labor” by Yu Miao.

1. The Style

The movie is a black comedy. But also with reminiscences of silent cinema. It appears also as a search for universalism, for humanity, which we can see under the surface of the film. When we can see people. Human beings like us. Therefore, the film is not merely critical in the sense of a Marxist critique. Rather, it is an anthropological observation. And perhaps also a question. The question that Lyotard asked himself when he wrote that revolution begins with a joke, with a little laugh. With the film, after all, we are supposed to laugh. 

2. Labor

Bruno Latour wrote about the change in the concept of ” labor” after the transition from coal-based to oil-based industries. The labor is gone. That is, it is now others who do the labor. In the neoliberal concept of capitalism, labor is only a symbol. It is something, that does not really exist. Yet the labor is gone, and all workers are gone too. And the whole proletariat is now far away from us. At the same point, the idea of society has not changed. You are only worth as much as you work. So everyone has to invent their own work. And thus becomes his own employer. Does it work? We can watch it in Yu Miao’s “The Elusive Joy of Labor”.

3. Poetry

On the other hand, searching for a job in times where labor is only an idea, appears kafkaesque. In this movie, Yu Miao shows us a man searching for a job. But there is not only Kafka. There is also Ariadne and her thread. In the labyrinth of searching for something that isn’t there. Where is the job then? Or, maybe we shall ask, what is the job at the current time when there are no jobs (or as Graeber wrote, there are only Bullshit Jobs). The only work then is that of the labor broker. 

4. The movie

We are happy to present the movie. Watch it here (external link) until 06.11.

If you are interested in Yu Miao’s work, here you can read more about it. 




Veröffentlicht am

Anwesenheitspflicht

Anwesenheit. Pflicht. Film

1. Die Anwesenheit

Felix Gonzalez Torres zeigte im  Jahr 1991 auf Werbetafeln in Manhattan das Foto eines verlassenen Bettes. Gegenräume. Heterotopien. Und berief sich dabei auf die Idee Foucaults. Adam Ziajski zeigt uns in seinem Film „Obecność Obowiązkowa“ eine Wohnung. Für Foucault hat ein Bett verschiedene Bedeutungen. Es kann eine Utopie werden. Ein Zufluchtsort. Ort der Erinnerungen. Eine Wohnung ist ebenfalls eine Heterotopie. Ein Ort, der seine Bestimmung ändern kann. Und darüber erzählt der Film. Über die Wohnung, die gleichzeitig Schutz bietet. Deren Bedeutung sich aber auch rasch ändern kann. In dem Film beobachten wir einen Mann, der die Wohnung nicht verlassen kann. Nicht verlassen darf. Denn die Bestimmung der Wohnung hat sich verändert. Sie soll, um den Bewohner zu schützen, nun ein geschlossener Ort werden. Ein Ort, den er nicht verlassen kann. Eine Heterotopie. Die ständig ihre Bestimmung verändert. Adam Ziajski untersucht diese Veränderung in seinem Film. 

2. Die Pflicht

Gilles Deleuze beschreibt in Postskriptum Über die Kontrollgesellschaft den Zustand einer….. ja… Gesellschaft, die, vornehmlich aus Sorge um die Gesellschaftsmitglieder, Machtansprüche stellt. In Adam Ziajskis Film versagen diese Gesellschaftlichen Reflexionen. Der Bewohner der Wohnung kann / darf sie verlassen. Doch nicht wegen eines Gesundheitsversprechens. Nicht als eine Geste der Freiheit. Sondern als Zwang. 

Ist es also ein Film über Freiheit? Hier wird die Freiheit zur Pflicht. Ein Akt (und nicht mehr ein Ort) bekommt eine andere Bedeutung und wird ebenfalls zur Heterotopie. Einer ortlosen, sagen wir, nomadischen Heterotopie. Und vielleicht darüber berichtet der Film. Über die nomadische Natur der Utopien, der Dystopien, der Heterotopien. Über den Nomadismus als einen permanenten Zustand. Auch wenn dieser in einer Wohnung stattfindet. 

3. Der Film

Der Film ist sehr zu empfehlen. Als Kurzfilm läuft er derzeit auf Festivals. Hier kann der Trailer (Polnisch, mit englischen Untertiteln) betrachtet werden (externer Link zur YouTube Seite)

Unsere Themen
Archive

©Zenvampires 2022

Legales

Follow Us

See also

Cookie Consent mit Real Cookie Banner