MANIFESTO: Towards a Political Consciousness of Cinema (Studies)

by Ana Lomtadze  and Madeleine Lorenat

We say we are living in the postmodern era. We say the world is globalized. So how do we trace these complex connections? How do we identify our complicity with power, for which we cannot find a name? Since its creation, cinema has continued to be an integral part of our social practices and still claims our attention with its various reflections on the way in which humans live. And so, in this increasingly complex world, cinema surely has the potential to confront, to delineate, examine and allow us enough time and space to comprehend issues both on intellectual and emotional levels. INDEED, CINEMA TODAY HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO BE POLITICAL.

Film may merely be a representation of reality or the reality or representation, but there is something to be discovered in this representation that we must delve further into. What will it take to create a more active and engaged viewer who will better receive the transmitted message? Perhaps more shock and awe? But no, we are surrounded by the alarming daily. It is a matter of becoming more aware conscious and in-tune with the message. We must be willing to give up a little of the entertainment and become active participants in the viewing experience, we must question the message behind the images, find what can be signified from the signifiers. In the past few years, there seems to be a surge in the overtly political films, but it could be argued that none of them have made us more politically active like the new wave films of the 60s did. Maybe this is to blame on the audience, we are too passive and we no longer have the willingness to be aware or for that matter self-aware. We must foster political consciousness amongst spectators, who will critically engage with the film and will reflect (both about the film and about her/his surroundings), as opposed to a Hollywood spectator, who usually consumes a film in a fast and easy manner, staying oblivious to the implications of representation. Or perhaps it is not a problem if we are disengaged, as long as we are left with the images, which will make us reflect later and starts our thinking.

IS “FIGHTING THE POWER THAT BE,” BECOMING MORE POLITICALLY AWARE OF OUR SURROUNDINGS?

Film Studies today has a twofold responsibility – as a discipline that is primarily occupied with studying the audiovisual in a world that is increasingly bombarded with images and sounds, and as a formative force of future filmmakers, producers, scholars and spectators. On the one hand, systems of power have become more complex (particularly since the Cold War) and it is not clear how to make sense (of ourselves) in the chain of images(youtube, facebook, tumblr, ads, etc.). Film Studies is facing a challenge of self-positioning – What is it going to teach and how? What kinds of questions will it ask about films, culture, politics, and the world? How is it going to theorize and engage with the sweeping new media, and with “the effects of these media on the form of political”?[1] On the other hand, the questions are: How come since film became an academic discipline, the cinephiles (who have since then become film students) seem to have abandoned the revolutionary spirit and passion for the slow, the difficult, the confrontational? We have now started call those films “weird”, “creepy” or  “boring”. Why do we tend to think that old means outdated? More importantly, why are we so hooked on formulaic narratives? Hollywood’s response is that it merely produces what we want as spectators – stars, guns, romance, suspense and a feel-good ending. In reusing images and narratives over and over again, our wants have been homogenized, standardized and fixed by Hollywood itself. We then demand, “…to return to first principles and remember that CINEMA IS ULTIMATELY THERE NOT TO MAKE MONEY BUT TO SERVICE OUR HUMANNESS, OUR ABILITY TO THINK, TO SEE, TO DREAM, TO WONDER, AND TO RAGE”[2]. Even if spectators are supposedly unwilling, filmmakers should not have to be condemned to accepting audiences as they (supposedly) are and film standards as Hollywood dictates them.

We are lucky, in that we live in a world, which is moving more quickly and interconnectedly than ever before. Exciting developments are happening, things/technology are developing at a fast pace, internet is changing how information is obtained and shared, and we, as inhabitants of this increasingly globalized society, have the opportunity to be writing its story and to be participating in molding the infrastructure. But rather than consuming and, for that matter, producing culture blindly, we need to be critical in our contributions. As Robert Greenwald states, “If everyone can be a filmmaker, the inevitable result is film fatigue. Amid the clutter, it is easy for high-quality activism to get buried”. YouTube may give us a brief respite from our own lives,but thus far, it is not apparent that cat videos have inspired anything more than a moment of entertainment. AS STUDENTS OF FILM STUDIES, WE NEED TO APPROACH THIS BARRAGE OF MATERIAL WITH A POLITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY NOT TO LET THE SPIRIT OF CINEMA AND POLITICAL ACTIVISM GET BURIED UNDER THE “CLUTTER”.

Film Studies does not exist in isolation – it is influenced by university politics that is in return defined by global capitalist economy. It will have to find a way to deal with the trend in academia of putting emphasis on the practical, the pragmatic, the scientific and the up-to-date (As the formula goes: “major in a practical field, get a good internship, get a good job, make good money”). As a humanist practice, Film Studies serves critical and emancipatory purposes and thus, has to resist de-politicization.We realize that what we are demanding of Film Studies – disregarding practicality and moneymaking – are neither easy nor without sacrifice. BUT THE CORE OF OUR DREAM IS ABOUT BECOMING BETTER PEOPLE AND LIVING FULLER LIVES – WE CAN THINK OF THIS DECLARATION AS A RISK OR AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. Though, as the old Russian saying goes: “who does not risk, does not get to drink Champagne in the end”. 😉

[1] Collin MacCabe: “For us in the advanced capitalist countries there is perhaps no instance so evident of the failure to theorize or practically act on the form of the political as the lack of engagement with the new information media that have developed throughout the century. The effects of these media on the form of the political remains, still, largely unchallenged in theory or in practice”.(MacCabe.Godard: Images, Sounds, Politics. Indiana University Press. 1980, p.53)

[2] “The Prospects for Political Cinema Today”.Cineaste. Winter 2011,p.14