Remodernist film developed in the United States and the United Kingdom in the late 1990s and early 21st century and is related to the British art movement Stuckism and its manifesto, Remodernism.
Contents |
History
Remodernist film calls for a return to emotional and spiritual meaning in cinema, as well as an emphasis on new ideas of narrative structure and subjectivity. Elements of French New Wave, No Wave Cinema, punk film, expressionist, spiritual and transcendental filmmaking, as well as Antonin Artaud's ideas on the Theatre of Cruelty helped lead to this new film movement [1]. They champion the works of Andrei Tarkovsky, Yasujiro Ozu, Robert Bresson, Jean Rollin, Michelangelo Antonioni, Jean Vigo, Amos Poe, Jean Epstein and Nicholas Ray among others, as well as Bela Tarr's film Satantango and Jean-Luc Godard's Hail Mary[1][2].
The first Remodernist films and filmmakers included Youngblood (1995) by Harris Smith, Shooting at the Moon (1998-2003) by Jesse Richards and Nicholas Watson, and Medway Bus Ride (1999) by Wolf Howard [2].
Remodernist film began as a film movement when a collective of filmmakers and photographers called Remodernist Film and Photography was founded by Richards and Smith in 2004, although the idea of Stuckism in relation to filmmaking and photography had been active since 2001 when Richards and Nicholas Watson began releasing work as The New Haven Stuckists Film Group. On March 8, 2008 their film Shooting at the Moon made its London premiere at Horse Hospital during its FLIXATION Underground Cinema Club event.
After a break from production for a few years, Remodernist film recently began seeking equipment and funds for new films in January, 2009[3].
In late August, 2009, an International Alliance of Remodernist Filmmakers was started by Jesse Richards in order to promote discussion and collaboration amongst those following the manifesto. The filmmakers include Jesse Richards, Harris Smith, Christopher Michael Beer, Dmitri Trakovsky, Kate Shults, Peter Rinaldi and Khurrem Gold of America, and Roy Rezaali of Holland.[4]
Manifesto
On August 27, 2008, Jesse Richards published a 15 point Remodernist Film Manifesto, calling for a "new spirituality in cinema", use of intuition in filmmaking, as well as describing the remodernist film as being a "stripped down, minimal, lyrical, punk kind of filmmaking". Point 4 notes,
"The Japanese ideas of wabi-sabi (the beauty of imperfection) and mono no aware (the awareness of the transience of things and the bittersweet feelings that accompany their passing), have the ability to show the truth of existence, and should always be considered when making the remodernist film."
There are also several polemic statements made in the manifesto that criticize Stanley Kubrick, filmmakers that shoot on digital video, as well as Dogme 95 [3]. In December, 2008, the Turkish film magazine Bakiniz translated the manifesto into Turkish [2].
Further developments
In October, 2009, with the intention "to further develop and explain Remodernist film concepts", a series of articles by Jesse Richards, Peter Rinaldi and Roy Rezaali were published in the magazine MungBeing [3]. In Richards' essay Concepts and Craft in Remodernist Film, he notes that Remodernist film craft "embraces the amateur", involves the idea of filmmakers "teaching themselves to paint pictures, to try acting in their own movies and those of others (especially if they are shy), to be nude models for other artists, to meditate, worship if they are religious, to do things that affect their levels of consciousness, try things that make them nervous or uncomfortable, to go out and be involved in life, to find adventure, to jump in the ocean. I think that is the exploration of craft" [1].
The article goes on to explain the differences between modernist, post-modernist and remodernist cinema, describing Robert Bresson and Andrei Tarkovsky as "early Remodernist filmmakers", and notes films that make emphasis of "small moments", including Bela Tarr's film Satantango, "...every moment of the film Satantango is a good example of this kind of exploration of "moments"- the film starts with a ten minute shot following cows coming out of a barn and wandering around a run-down agriculture collective. These kinds of moments are all but ignored in most examples of modern cinema, and that's a terrible, terrible thing".
Richards goes on to explain his own brand of Remodernist filmmaking:
my own interests are a little more specific. I'm interested in Japanese aesthetics, Tarkovsky's ideas on "sculpting in time", an emphasis on moments. But there's something else I've really been thinking about lately. I believe that the most effective way to really make subjective and authentic work involves an "addressing of the shadow" (as Billy Childish and Charles Thomson have described it). Now what does this mean exactly? It might mean that you are really obsessed with pubic hair, or maybe you are really embarrassed by a physical or mental disability that you try to hide, or like Billy Childish, you were abused as a child. These things, these "shadows" that we are hiding within ourselves, need to be brought forth into the light of day - in our films, in our work, in our poetry. It's necessary for us to share these parts of ourselves so we and the people we share with can grow into complete, honest human beings. Now, this kind of brutal honesty about ourselves shown through imagery that isn't shy, has been explored to a degree in the work from the Cinema of Transgression, and is advocated by Antonin Artaud in his writings about the Theatre of Cruelty, and his later writings on cinema. But I don't think it's quite as simple as just that. As human beings, we are also full of beauty and love and poetry - we can see this in ourselves and in others and in the world around us. So this beauty must be explored as well, and in combination with the exploration of the shadow. The funny thing is that if we would just be honest as filmmakers, or painters, or as whatever we happen to work with, if we could be this honest, this approach would happen automatically. But we are told again and again- these things don't go together, don't tell people about that thing that you can't get out of your head- that image is inappropriate. We've become very afraid of just expressing ourselves honestly, of removing the desperate attempts to appear clever, we've been afraid of showing our true selves out of fear that others will think us fools. So this is where Artaud, the Cinema of Transgression, and even Andrei Tarkovsky have not gone quite the distance. The cinematic exploration of spirituality and transgression together - pubic hair, blood and shit and love and the green grass and the dying cherry blossoms, falling snow, passing trains - every single fucking beautiful piece of life - that is what my conception of Remodernist film is [1].
In another article, entitled A Quick Primer and History, Richards relaxes the criticism in the manifesto against digital video, noting that it can "have a place in Remodernist cinema" but that it should be given a new language, and that it currently "mimic(s) film". The article also broadens the aim of the movement, explaining the common bond among Remodernist filmmakers being a search for truth, knowledge, authenticity and spirituality in their work, but having different approaches on achieving that goal [1].
Peter Rinaldi, analyzes the manifesto and shares his "personal thoughts" on it in his essay, The Shore as seen from The Deep Sea. Particularly, he defends the criticism of digital and later of Stanley Kubrick, saying first, "for the most part, the "easiness" of video has led to degradation in the images created" [1] and then,
I certainly don't share in my friend's opinion of this man's work, but I actually think this is a hugely important part of the manifesto. A lot of us came to be filmmakers because a particular director's (or a number of directors) work inspired us. A friend of mine calls these inspirational figures his "Giants," which I think is a great word for them because sometimes they are built up so much in our minds that we don't think we, or our work, can ever really reach them and theirs. I think, for the most part, the generation that I grew up in had Kubrick as their Giant. His work has a mystical "perfectionism" that is awe-inspiring at times. This perfectionism is anathema to the Remodernist mentality and for many healthy reasons, this giant (or whatever giant towers over your work) must fall in our minds. We must become the giant [1].
The rest of the article draws direct connections between ideas in the manifesto and some Christian and Buddhist teachings[1].
See also
- Addressing the Shadow and Making Friends with Wild Dogs: Remodernism
- No Wave Cinema
- Underground film
- Stuckism Photography
- Postmodernist film
References
- ^ a b c d e f g h "Remodernist Film", MungBeing, October 4, 2009 Retrieved October 9, 2009
- ^ a b c "Interview with Remodernist Filmmaker Jesse Richards", Bakiniz, December 28, 2008 Retrieved December 28, 2008
- ^ a b c "Remodernist Film Seeks Outside Help", When The Trees Were Still Real, January 15, 2009 Retrieved January 15, 2009
- ^ Richards, Jesse. "International Alliance of Remodernist Filmmakers", When the Trees Were Still Real, August 25, 2009. Retrieved September 23, 2009.
External links
- Sex and Lies 1997 Trailer for an early Remodernist film by Jesse Richards and Nicholas Watson.
- Remodernist Film group on Facebook
- Official Blog for Remodernist Film/Jesse Richards
- Interview with Remodernist filmmaker and photographer Jesse Richards on MYARTSPACE.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
