Has the history of narrative cinema denied us the pleasure of seeing things as they are? I'm beginning to believe that with the absence of the "glitz and gloss" of narrative cinema we are starting to undermine our own capabilities of seeing things for what they are. Is it really that people find art films boring? Or are they just scared of letting themselves go into a world where you're left to your own devices and conclusions? Art films don't set out to do, or say anything in particular. Various things happen....and the expectation of that one particular thing to happen never gets fulfilled. They provide no answers to what one might understand as the principle question. They don't try to engage us with conversation and we never really find out anything about the characters in the film (if there are any). Ideas and images are thrown together to tell a story....and only a story....the conversations never come alive and neither do the characters....you never enter their world.....you can watch from afar....and take what you like and leave what you don't understand. That's the joy of it! You don't have to understand. You just watch and appreciate things for what they are. Have we gotten so used to the ideas of clear cut narratives where there exists a security of a plot and illusion, characters and situations that can be followed, and emotions that can be shared, that the idea of just looking at something for what it is without putting it into a greater perspective is lost? Are situations and images not able to stand on their own without standing out? The feeling of security that one gets from narratives is a lot more. Of course it is, they provide us with emotional resolutions and final endings. But their endings are so absolute, that it feels almost as if they were taking possesion of the world with their final endings. And with the knowledge that the world is not absolute and it isn't actually possible to take possesion of the world, why aren't we able to overlook the narrative structure? Is it a history we can't let go of? Or do we just always need to identify with something?
Monday, November 14, 2005
Someone said that to me and I coudln't help but wonder if it was a "trying to be smart" comeback for what I had said to her just before that comment was sparked or whether she truly believed it. The fact is, that life is exactly the way it's meant to be, because at any given time, we've all made decisons, and those decisions were the reasons we're here for 'here and now'. I'm not syaing that 'here and now' embodies the entire essence of life. It doesn't! But it does most definitely play a major role in the future, because futures are made of a number of pasts and life is made up of all our pasts and futures. So for all the times you've sat moping about how life isn't going your way, you might want to retrace your steps. You'll find, as I have, that at some point, you made a conscious decision to do something, which led to a chain of events that landed you in this spot in time. So really, it's perfectly plain. "You pay for your sins in this lifetime," they say. And consequences have led me to believe that it holds true. So every decision you make and every step you take in life has it's consequences. Fair or not is arguable....but meant to be?! Well clearly you put yourself in it ... by whatever means ... so yes it is meant to be!