# Jonas Mekas (2016). *Movie Journal: The Rise of the New American Cinema, 1959-1971*. : Columbia University Press. > [!INFO] > Type:: [[book]] > Title:: Movie Journal: The Rise of the New American Cinema, 1959-1971 > Author(s): [[Jonas Mekas]] > Year:: 2016 > Tags:: > DOI:: > Citekey:: mekas_movie_2016 > ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: Movie Journal: The Rise of the New American Cinema, 1959-1971](zotero://select/items/@mekas_movie_2016) > ReviewedDate:: [[2023-08-29]] ## Citation ```latex [@mekas_movie_2016] ``` ## Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@mekas_movie_2016]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` ## Summary - ## Annotation “We need less perfect but more free films” (Mekas, 2016, p. 7) “The movements and tensions of her films seem to be predestined.” (Mekas, 2016, p. 8) “Since we are nourished on the epic picture only, I have no illusions that film poetry will ever be understood and felt by very many. Most of the time poetical feelings are considered weak and unmanly.” (Mekas, 2016, p. 8) “ON THE EXPANDING EYE” (Mekas, 2016, p. 125) “A new spiritualized reality of motion and light is created on the screen, as in the work of Brakhage or Jerry Joffen.” (Mekas, 2016, p. 151) “Gregory Markopoulos introduces single-frame editing.” (Mekas, 2016, p. 151) “You have seen multiple and hand-held projectors, multiple screens, and the fusion of live and screen action at Judson Church during the “Fantastic Gardens” evening.” (Mekas, 2016, p. 151) > For what is cinema really, if not images, dreams, and visions? We take one more step, and we give up all movies and we become movies: We sit on a Persian or Chinese rug smoking one dream matter or another and we watch the smoke and we watch the images and dreams and fantasies that are taking place right there in our eye’s mind: we are the true cineasts, each of us, crossing space and time and memory—this is the ultimate cinema of the people, as it has been for thousands and thousands of years. (152) > > 이미지, 꿈, 환상이 아니라면 영화란 과연 무엇일까요? 우리는 한 걸음만 더 나아가면 모든 영화를 포기하고 영화가 됩니다. 페르시아나 중국의 양탄자 위에 앉아 담배를 피우며 연기를 보고, 눈앞에서 일어나는 이미지와 꿈과 환상을 보는 것, 바로 우리 각자가 진정한 시네아스트이며, 시공과 기억을 넘나드는 것, 이것이 수천, 수만 년 동안 그랬던 것처럼 인류의 궁극적인 영화인 셈입니다. “And I remembered how, just last weekend at the Philadelphia College of Art, Sol Mednick was saying that he felt that one of the things that cinema will probably never have is that tactile feeling, that energy that sparks when a painter or a sculptor presses his brush or knife against his materials the tactile interaction which produces a very direct relationship and enables him to completely transmit his temperament and his feelings through that brush or that knife into that canvas or that wood.” (Mekas, 2016, p. 255) “Here is another aspect where the new cinema differs from the traditional cinema—in this direct relationship between the artist, his tools, and his materials.” (Mekas, 2016, p. 255) “I have said before that the camera has become the extension of the artist’s fingers, and the lens his third eye.” (Mekas, 2016, p. 255) “The essential point here is that this is not one-sided activity: It’s an interaction. The camera movements are reflections of the body movements; the body movements are reflections of the emotional and thought movements—which, in their turn, are caused by what came in through the eye. A circle between the artist’s eye and the camera eye is established.” (Mekas, 2016, p. 256) “No, this isn’t new. But for the first time we are seeing it happen in cinema in such an intense manner.” (Mekas, 2016, p. 256) “A: You are referring to what I said at the UNESCO meeting. I am not against using cinéma vérité techniques to document, to record life scientifically. I asked Jean Rouch if that’s what he wanted. No, he answered, I want to do creative work. That’s what I am against and it’s here that the discussion begins. Cinéma vérité techniques should not be used to falsify the truth. They should be used to educate.” (Mekas, 2016, p. 299) “Editing became an intuitive process. Like, say, when somebody paints (there is “editing” in every art): The painter doesn’t think that now I should pull the brush up, now to the left, now up again, now down, etc.” (Mekas, 2016, p. 307) “What are the qualities that bind together, at least for me, the works of Michael Snow, Paul Sharits, Ken Jacobs, Ernie Gehr, Hollis Frampton, Joyce Wieland, George Landow, and the recent work of Robert Breer? Each in his particular way is preoccupied with a conscious manipulation of movement and light.” (Mekas, 2016, p. 352) ### Related ```dataview LIST FROM [[@mekas_movie_2016]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ```