[[202201150124]] ## Peter Gidal (2016). *Materialist Film*. : Routledge. > [!INFO] > Type:: [[]] > Title:: Materialist Film > Author(s): [[Peter Gidal]] > Year:: 2016 > Tags:: > DOI:: > Citekey:: gidal_materialist_2016 > ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: Materialist Film](zotero://select/items/@gidal_materialist_2016) > ReviewedDate:: [[2024-01-14]] ## Citation ```latex [@gidal_materialist_2016] ``` ## Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@gidal_materialist_2016]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` ## Summary - ## Annotation > "영화와 '확장된' 연기의 문제는 당시(1970~4년) 자신의 작품이 중요한 역할을 했던 길 이더리(Gill Eatherley)에 의해 명료화되었습니다. 주목해야 할 순간은 1973년에 이미 영화 제작자의 주관성, 즉 저자와 무관한 주관성에 대한 질문을 깨닫는 순간입니다." > “Problems with film and "expanded" performance are articulated by Gill Eatherley, whose own work at the time (1970-4) played an important part. The moments to watch are those that realize already in 1973 the questions of the subjectivity of the filmmaker, a subjectivity with no implication of authorship.” (Gidal, 2016, p. 116) ### 332 - “It must be noted that the term deconstruction is here meant in very opposition to Burch's definition, taken from Metz and Derrida, as Annette Kuhn here utilizes it outside of the notion of strict cinematic codes which would then be, each time, negated or deconstructed. She uses the term to posit the constant denial of meaning whilst simultaneously attempted reproduction of images is effected, by the cinematic apparatus, camera, editing, lighting, speed, grain, and so on.” - p115 “This is associated with a refusal of the illusion of homogenous filmic space, not only in the sense already suggested, but also by the collapsing of on-screen/off-screen space evident in the movement between the edges of the filmed image – coterminous with the screen – and the edges of the photographs, so that the space of the film is subject to a process of constant redefinition. The repetitions, the radical refusal of semioticity, the unfixed nature of the space articulated by the film, all serve to operate against the kind of closure associated with a defined and homogenous film space” (Annette Kuhn, “Notes for a perspective on avant garde film,” Hay ward Gallery, London, 1977).” **Light Reading ➡︎** > “More correctly it is not a shift of registers from the usual experience of film, but rather producing in the spectator a *realization of the habitual subjugation of image to sound*” (71) > 구조적/유물론적 의무는 제작에서 영화 제작자의 문자 그대로의 역할을 문서화하도록 요구하는 것이 아니기 때문에 조금 더 복잡합니다. 오히려 그것은 관객을 통해 영화적(카메라가 목표로 하는 것) 및 영화적 변형의 과정을 요구하는 명령입니다. (72) > The structural/materialist imperative is slightly more complex, as it is not one demanding the documentation of the filmmaker's literal role in the production. Rather, it is the imperative of a process of pro-filmic (that which the camera is aimed at) and filmic transformations, through the viewer. (72) - A crucial distinction follows: the film as “record” of its own making and the modernist/post-modernist contingencies of such, must not be understood as some kind of *record-of*, but rather as the abstract of that. In the concrete empirical sense this does *not* mean a film that *documents* the filmmaking techniques via what we are given to see by the illusionist capacities of the photochemical recording device (film). Rather, it means film's abstract, a filmic real in which a process is instituted as a process, not the documentation *of* a process (72-3). - 결정적인 차이는 다음과 같다. 영화는 자체 제작의“기록”으로서의 현대주의 / 포스트 모더니즘 적 우발성으로 일종의 기록으로 이해되어서는 안되고 오히려 추상적 인 것으로 이해되어야한다. 구체적인 경험적 의미에서 이것은 우리가 광화학 기록 장치 (필름)의 환상 능력에 의해 보여지는 것을 통해 영화 제작 기술을 문서화하는 필름을 의미하는 것은 아니다. 오히려 그것은 프로세스의 문서화가 아니라 프로세스가 프로세스로서 제정되는 영화의 현실, 영화의 추상을 의미한다. - A process of its own contradictions of presentation/representation, reproduction/effacement, attempted narrativizational hold of the spectator/impossible narrativizing of the spectator. - The object film thus does not somehow essentially, or even momentarily in its operation, record an activity of something else and adequately represent that, but rather, complexly does not annihilate processes engaged. This is how “record of its own making” must be understood. A radical sense of Realism. Such a film is not about some other real, but is its Real. - (253) [[Peter Kubelka]]'s Arnulf Rainer (1966, Austria) “is a montage of black and white leader, with white sound (a mixture of all audible frequencies)” ([[@sitney_visionary_2002]], 335) - [[Peter Kubelka|Kubelka]] himself argues that the strongest collisions are between frames, that it is not the shots which collide but “the last frame of one and the first frame of the other” (ibid.). ([[@sitney_visionary_2002]], 288) ### Related ```dataview LIST FROM [[@gidal_materialist_2016]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ```