Spetsai

Un prétexte : le journal filmé d’un séjour dans une île grecque en janvier dernier. Originellement tourné en Super-8, puis gonflé en 16 mm , le film a subi une transformation supplémentaire après le montage, par l’adjonction de texte.

Spetsai 1

Le texte permet à la fois la suspension du déroulement en ce qu’il fait passer l’image au second plan mais aussi en ce qu’il lui confère une signification autre. Jeu de texte et de l’image qui permet, à partir d’éléments de journaux, d’aborder d’autres domaines ainsi que pouvait l’esquisser à sa manière Divers-épars.

Spetsai 2

« Avec Spetsai, beauvais se défausse de l’insolente beauté des lieux de villégiature filmés, en incrustant dans les images un texte extrait de Commentaires sur la société du spectacle de Guy Debord. Au caractère dionysiaque des paysages méditerranéens répond la gravité du texte de Debord sur la radioactivité et la politique du secret nucléaire des États. N’est-ce pas notre propre schizophrénie existentielle que le film dévoile ici ? Les dangers quotidiens et permanents, les malheurs de l’humanité, les holocaustes, massacres, que nous délivrent quotidiennement les media ne nous empêchent pas de continuer à vaquer à nos occupations comme si de rien n’était. C’est bien ce paradoxe terrible de l’être humain, révélé avec acuité par la société contemporaine, que yann beauvais nous « jette à la figure ». La façon dont le texte apparaît à l’image n’est pas neutre : présenté deux lignes par deux lignes, il est tributaire pour sa lecture du montage du film. Son indépendance par rapport à l’image place le spectateur dans une situation qui diffère radicalement des conditions de lecture textuelle d’un film narratif sous-titré. Le débit des images prédétermine le rythme d’une lecture qui ne peut être que mnémonique, selon un ordre immuable : 1. lecture du texte / 2. mémorisation du texte / 3. lecture des images /4. synthèse des deux et ainsi de suite. Le montage cinématographique impose son propre mode de lecture du « message »; cependant le contenu du texte impose à son tour un ordre des choix, des tris, des analyses des constituants cinématographiques. Le fil d’un texte visionnaire et terriblement actuel a valeur d’antidote à une dérive esthétisante que le cinéaste refuse; il s’impose comme préalable à une contemplation des images qui ne peut être suffisante. » Jean Michel Bouhours

Spetsai 4

At first a diary film of a sojourn on a Greek island last January. Originally filmed the Super 8, then blown up to 16mm, the film has undergone a supplementary transformation, after editing, by the joining of a text. The text permits a suspension to the film unfolding, in that it makes the image pass into the background while also giving it, the image, another signification. Play upon text and image which enables, starting the elements of a diary, souvenir, an approach into other areas, just as Divers Epars, sketched in its own way another approach. yann beauvais

« Cheap lyricism! Perverted poetics! « Just pretty stuff » (As if something this viscerally sensual could ever be mere prettiness!) Subvert the hackmeister and his big chop, slash’n’burn wish. In unison, loudly: Pleasure isn’t necessarily mere frivolousness, and, anyhow, the occasional frill isn’t just a flirt! This too, elicits an awed-ah response: SPRING SPETSAI BUDS SMELL SWEET ha! ha! TIPTOE THROUGH THE RADIOACTIVE LANGUAGE, BUSTER. No, pleasure isn’t just frivolous. (squirm and writhe) Glerps. Get it: mental meddling can also be tinkling with the erogenous zones. Shall I say: beings fully engaged in the act of watching. The brain operates the heart pumps the blood to the brain, interconnected, as are these aspects – emotional/intimate, cerebral/theoretical – facets of a celluloid gem, emitting and refracting its colour, light, sense and time beyond the screen.
Adamant bully dad Dad? He threatens, but fortunately doesn’t slice out. Or just that which interferes with the rhythm; he’s got a keen ear for that. A slice can be a splice can be the pinch of spice. » Sandra Reid

Spetsai 3

 » Emerging from the blue into sharp dappling strokes; waves. The edge od the winter sea. An orange in a tree, in January, fruit shuddering forth from a green and blue shot haze, taking focus but only just, as if suddenly round and dazzling with sunlight -; a small sun hung in the trees and then gone, quickly a shiver becoming part of the smudge stutter of images as they turn from land to sea lapping close, rocks close, stone. Textures washed sharp, tense. A clarity of colour blurring and the judder jump movement; the green slide focussing out of a leaf, near to its surface making the leaf appear from a chamber of light, then a branch and branching, a tree and this thicket of green a filter for the wall which hovers behind it, moving through in a white blaze and further along the branch, close again, the ball of copper shimmering from its dozing shade takes shape in a brief orb of vibrant orange. The winter crisp light and landscape of a voyage on an island, Spetsai. Tripping on the diary journey ; a man and a donkey on a stony path, hot heads of flowers, the glimpsing of water and air so pure. Over the sky slung water pieces of cloud in the metallic titles of waves, dipping across and down, plunge the hand in a dive rippling the mirror of the sea floor deeper below, sky into ocean. POLLUTION. Hangs the word over the luscious lapse of holiday just at the point of succombing to the sway of island, view out from land, tumbling of flowers in a lilt to, hills tilting to water. NUCLEAR, when up-to-the-hilt-secure in the resplendent eternal thrill of nature, basking on the rhythm POLLUTION (by any other name would smell as sweet). Get your hand out of the water. Juxtaposition of language insidiously infecting the image, cutting across them and with its static linear horizon blocking any attempt to hook on the colour and movement. Lustre of words enforced and assured by sound printing firmly on the screen, this site the beginnings of western thinking and just around the corner the bleach of the black industry (whitened when they can from the waste). Beach POLLUTION on the holiday idyll still travelling like a backdrop, swung from the high balm of ocean now absorbing words, words. End. Go now it blows. The images holding a different reading, interprete those postcards; having a lovely time, so beautiful, wish…pleasure threatened and not only pleasure. Get there now but too late, SPECTACLE to look at but looking means you’re a part of it, water in high and low tide, corruption inlaid DISTORTION rendering passive, how fantastic when it blows except you’ll blow with it. Lovely to look at, lovely to behold (forgetting the sewage outfall) thought leading (forgetting everything) NUCLEAR SPECTACLE. SUGAR COATED; much sweet bribes, look, CATASTROPHE. »
Sandra Reid 1989

entre-deux-mondes

Fr, En, Pt

existe en version française, English version, Versão Português https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t54Skf2z-GY&feature=youtu.be

Une promenade dans les jardins de Versailles en décembre 83 filmé en super 8.
printemps 2010 une réappropriation et un détournement du film d’origine. L’espace du jardin s’est transformé, le document d’origine se déploie autrement, faisant surgir d’autres plans, d’autres horizons et des modalités de pouvoirs laissés de côté au profit d’une contemplation esthétique.

A trip to the Versailles garden in the winter of 83.
In 2010 I rework that super 8 original footage in order to bring other meaning to this landscape. The alteration of this footage through color mixing and speed,entre deux mondes port as much as the adding of a short text convey other meanings such as power codification that are not yet visible when one takes for granted a magnify shaped landscape.
entre deux mondes texte 1 - copie 2

 

Uma viagem para o Jardim de Versalhes, no inverno de 83. Em 2010 eu re-trabalho as imagens originais em super-8 a fim de trazer outro significado a esta paisagem. A alteração deste material através da mistura de cores e velocidades, tanto como a adição de um pequeno texto, transmite outros significados, tais como a codificação de poder, que ainda não são visíveis quando um toma como dado a paisagem magnificamente formada.

meeting paul in buffalo

Une brève visite à Buffalo à l’occasion d’une projection de mes films invité par Paul SHARITS. quelques fragments de super 8 tournés en 1983.

A short trip to buffalo in order to show some of my works, invited by Paul SHARITS in 1983. Super 8 footage.

Meeting with Paul, Buffalo 2

Meeting with Paul, Buffalo

 

 

 

Luchando

Luchando  5

A la suite d’un voyage, le film interroge l’histoire de Cuba à travers les rapports que nous entretenons avec les différents mythes de quant à la révolution cubaine…
Les questions de l’homosexualité et du racisme permettent d’investir ces tensions. Recyclage et appropriation de documents visuels de toutes provenances : cinéma de propagande nord américain, cubain, soviétique, mais aussi documents d’actualité (historique et contemporain, films de fiction et documentaires, superposés à des séquences réalisées au portable. Le travail sonore croise des sons originaux et prélevés ainsi que différents discours de Fidel Castro… et en voix off une réflexion sur la question du racisme par un intellectuel dissident.

Tissage polyphonique à propos de Cuba.

Luchando 2

tu, sempre #11

 Fr, En, Pt

Image 2Reprenant et poursuivant le versions antérieures de Tu, sempre cette nouvelle version en portugais interroge plus particulièrement les questions du VIH et du Sida au Brésil.

La bande sonore est un collage de deux morceaux d’Ultra-Red.

A new version of Tu, sempre a work in continuous progress. This short film is in Portuguese and deals mostly about HIV and Aids in Brasil.
The soundtrack is a collage of two pieces by Ultra-Red

Uma nova versão do filme Tu, sempre, um trabalho em progresso. Este curta é em português, e concentra-se sobre AIDS e HIV no Brasil. O som é um colagem a partir de doas peças de Ultra-Red.

Image 1

Artificial Poetic

Un hommage à Hollis Frampton. À partir du livre de photographies Poetic Justice une plaisanterie cinématographique.

Réalisé à l’occasion de l’exposition Book machine dans le cadre du nouveau festival centre georges pompidou 2013.

https://vimeo.com/119705872
artificial poetic 1

Ken Jacobs Film – As a Phantom Image (Eng)

published in 1994 for the Ken Jacobs retrospective at the American Center in Paris and in the Oberhausen catalogue (42ème international – short film festival, 1996) for the Ken Jacobs presentation : « Das Kino Als Geisterbild ».

Ken Jacobs is one of the most important figures in American experimental film. For more than 35 years, he has questioned the nature of moving pictures in a variety of approaches. Whatever the genre – film diary, analytical film, « personals film », picaresque film, 3D performance – he is always interested in film as a process of recording and reconstituting (in the projection) an event or a more or less open narrative. The narrative structure is never absent on Ken Jacobs’s films, although some of his works break up the classic form of representation and its narrative traditions. Film replays in the present a time long gone, another life. Cinema as an enterprise producing phantoms and ghosts whose visual performances constitutes its magnificent outcome. A work on the ephemeral and the fragility of the filmic illusion, revealed by Jacob’s installations.

Since his early films, which celebrates a way of living, long gone since, as with Orchard Street or Little Stabs at happiness, 50’s bohemian life in New York city, to the latest performances of electrical shadows, Ken Jacobs has always been the outsider within the experimental film scene. H has always claimed and promoted a free cinema, a cinema close to home movies as those made about Flo’s family for Urban Peasants, and which share the same feeling as some of Ron Rice and Jack Smith. Many of his early works have been done with Jack Smith (even if some times they were done with some disagreement). Ken Jacob’s film mixes styles which until then dispersed, the use of found footage, authorize him to question the narrative in Doctor’s Dream, investigate the notion of authenticity with Perfect Film, out-takes from a film dealing with Malcolm X assassination. With Tom, Tom The Piper ’s Son, themes and variations transformed the narratives codes from a recycle so called primitive film. This recycling of footage is also very active within the performance, a French porno film of the 20’s is used withXCXHXEXRXRXIXEXSX, while Making Light of History : The Philippines Adventureused newsreel. Within the 3D film the history of cinema is present ; as a reference or as a quotation, Lumière’s film within Opening the Nineteenth Century : 1896, Buster Keaton with Keaton’s Cops.

He works by approaching sounds and music as well as recycled and redirected images. This recycling does not stop at his own films which are never completely finish, always work in progress. The soundtrack of Blonde Cobra uses a radio transmission which punctures the stretches of the black silence, is inserted between the sequences in order to oppose the present and the vision of scenes that took elsewhere, long ago. The invasion of parasites into the ghosts of a story that is still to come for the audience of the presence. The characters of the picaresque films are put into question, opened for discussion by the scenes that interrupt the plot, as in Star Spangled to death and The Sky Socialist. His work his always on the periphery, marginal. In With Tom, Tom The Piper ’s Son, it is the rereading of the story, its abstraction, that makes us aware of the details of the images we have missed. Likewise in Perfect Film, where none of the found footage film was modified. By this process of appropriation and naming, Ken Jacobs forces us to exercise a critical view. Ken Jacob always tries to break our seeing habits to make us aware of all that can be contained by in the filmed image. The representation is haunted by a multitude of events we don’t know how to perceive. Only the filmmaker’s insistence – as well as the spectator’s- makes them visible. The ghost images recover shape for all who knows how to take time to look at them.

CHAUSSE-TRAPPE (THE TRAP) (Eng)

in Undercut n°16, London 1986

 Art is

A screen, an image. The image on the screen is not the film frame. A distinct distance separates them. Our screen, our image is thus contained. But the container tends to disappear in favour of the contained. This effacement is magnified at the centre of the screen, where events and action are distributed, divided. To such an extent that a flicker film reveals the pulsating mechanism which unevenly distributes light across the surface of the screen, dividing in four zones. In the centre is a dead zone, neutral, which seems to allow for the eruption of luminous events. This flow of luminous energy between the four quarter eclipses, by its very rotation, the edges of the image. The edges disappear in favour of this intense flow. The frame becomes a dead zone of representation. This zone shines dumbly, unquestioning – and yet it keeps its cutting edge.

Two screens revitalise at least two edges : those that meet.
Two screens direct, brutally, a dialectic of presence.

Simultaneously presence delayed, replayed, redoubled, homogenous, heterogeneous. Two screens can contradict each other in various multiple ways, suggesting new signifying chains as well as raising aesthetic problems that others have been able to grasp by using musical models as a paradigm. The look flows, weaving patterns across the surface of representation, choosing elements and lines of force which sometimes fold back into the totality of the image-composition. A temporal potential realised through spatial means. Reinforcing displacement by the condensation of two images (or more) into a totally new one.

Something serious

A similar paradigm is used in R and in it’s twin screen RR. The central part of the film is based on a transcription of a Bach invention for two voices.
The two screens underscore this paradigm in so far as one is always the simultaneous reflection of the visual development of the other, regardless of the position of the reels (left or right) – the technique of inversion of a theme so often used in music.
The use of the mirror deliberately side-steps the question of the reality of the representation. It no longer has any importance now that we’re in the domain of the reflected image, of imitation. It’s impossible to determine which is a reflection of which. The two images reflect one another in a constant back-and-forth, mimicking to a certain extent the development of the (fake) pans which comprises the film ( shots taken every 5° along a 180° arc). The pans metaphorically evoke, if only superficially, the keyboard. The progression wasn’t, isn’t, the same : in one, range changes pitch ; in the other , space is revealed and extended. They have nothing in common, their development isn’t the same – one lead to growth, augmentation ; the other , a spatial glissando. Sans Titre 84, employs photos of the highly symbolic Arc of Triumph which are then cut into vertical, horizontal and diagonal strips. The individual photos carry little interest, they represent just a brief moment in a series which moves in two different directions. The serial aspect of the photos invokes time, shaping time which subverts the still photo. Every one of these photos -grouped into four different series (one series which circles the arc, shot from24 positions according to a 24-pointed star inscribed on the ground, plus three series approaching the arc from three different avenues) – is a common shot, with standard lighting and composition, thus enhancing the object photographed. The blending of these views (2 by 2) produces new objects which mark distinct moments in the circling of the arc. Architectonics is thus invoked, convoked by the differential reconstruction of the initial object. The arc transforms itself by coupling with itself (unity generates multiplicity). The instantly recognisable identity of the object is thus short-circuited, creating tension in the gaze which seeks to re-establish that lost identity. For the object gets lost in its twice doubled image and (dismembered) must reconstruct itself. The image paradoxically and simultaneously gives of itself in order to withhold. The Arc of Triumph’s power is such that, even though heavily re-worked by the strips, it tends to efface this re-working. Hence the necessity of twinning the screens. Offering a twin, if not an identical one, which will attack the (politically, symbolically, touristically) « much-longed-for » object.

Alas !

Movement, movements are simulated. Realm of imitation, imitation of cinema (that of the partisan of cinema as reflection of reality as well as that of their antagonists, those valiant knights who do battle with that horrible beast). The film presents false movements – the work of fiction. The temporally constructed is neither that of narrativity not that of a simple circling of the arc, because it’s doubled – in phase or not – creating and underscoring the mechanical concordance of the projection situation. Isolate to manipulate, or, how to disguise the way things work.
Itself an imitation (simulation), the reconstruction is agenced through retouched photos, and smooth continuity is disrupted in favour of a numbing of sense(s). And the objects go round. Faced with these doubled objects and twinned screens, the gaze nevertheless privileges, choosing one circuit, selecting one circling rather than another. It’s incapable of dealing with simultaneous contraries.
So the gaze follows one way, which nevertheless begins to tilt when the object encounters itself. Without, for that matter, really identifying itself for what it is. Each time that the « treasured object » draws nearer to its lost form, the other object reappears and sabotages homogeneity with its heterohomogeneity.


yann beauvais, translated by Deke Dusinberre.
Undercut n°16 spring/summer 1986

Does One Film to Forget ? (Eng)

on line http://www.artbrain.org/does-one-film-to-forget/ Cinema and the Brain Journal of Neuro-Aesthetic Theory #2, New York 2002

Does one film to forget ? Or is a film made to create an archive, a catalogue of souvenirs ? What is the relationship between cinema and memory ? When I think about cinema, I am referring mainly to experimental cinema, video, and film by visual artists. There are various connections between memory and cinema. Is memory already constituted or does it constitute itself through the use of or with images ? It is common knowledge that memory does not refer or limit itself to images ; rather, it convokes and exerts itself in accordance with all of our senses. In this article, however, I will limit myself to the relationship that cinema entertains with souvenir, memory, and therefore with the faculty of recycling audiovisual phenomena and the way in which we intercept this material. Some will argue that cinema is the ideal instrument to gather images in large quantities (now supplanted by video), and to restore moments, locations and behaviors linked to a given period. In this case, the thought process is close to documentary film, whether personal or militant in spirit. And, sometimes an ethnographical or sociological alibi that is more or less intentional will slip in between. Still others contend that the medium favors the irruption of an amateur’s cinema, a cinema devoid of quality, a cinema that finds statement in the setting up of filmed diaries.

Whatever form they adopt, these modes of statement maintain a privileged relationship with the manifestation and the constitution of memory, and the film projecting it bears the trace in the restitution process. In this case, we refer mostly to the notion of an intimate memory, whether or not it relates to family issues. Others insist such works refer to an identity quest that requires the use of a personal cinema, where autobiography and filmed diary merge. If one moves away from these paths, different kinds of relations establish themselves between cinema and memory. They become intense when it comes to building a specific, cinematographic experience necessitating the vision of the film to be produced. In this case, one is faced with a cinema that deals more with its constituents. I would like to call to mind these different attitudes by choosing to cover freely these various territories of cinema. This course is a passage from one window to the next, like clicking through a series of PC windows.

Consider the revelation experienced by Jonas Mekas when he discovered the United States would ground him and constitute the pedestal from which he would be able to say that he, in fact, remembers. This experience is present in Mekas’ film Lost Lost Lost(1943-76) and is emblematic of the way in which an acquired memory, unveiled by and through cinema, is discovered.

Such an aperture in time creates a familiar space, and is often employed in filmed diaries. An individual experience that can sometimes successfully be shared, this space occurs in Mekas’ work through the device of an “I remember” that neither Joe Brainard nor Georges Perec would refute. In this case, the act of filming favors the emergence of memory and spurs one, the pertinence or eviction of which becoming apparent during the editing process. Indeed, a filmmaker makes films by gathering miles of footage. Then he proceeds with the selection process of the material, a process without which no memory that is efficient is possible, as there is always the possibility of discarding and essentially forgetting.

One forgets in order to be able to remember. Sometimes I make filmed diaries that allow me to have memories, as if their realities depended on the fact that they are representations.

Just as films are made about families, a diary becomes a pretext for commentary ; rare are those filmed diaries that are silent (however this argument can be immediately refuted when one thinks of the first diaries by Hiroyuki Oki or Andrez Nores). To name but a few, Jonas Mekas, Boris Lehman, and Joseph Morder sacrifice everything to “keep quiet.” The viewer is transported back into a past that is no longer relevant or that attempts a linearity that often goes against the flow, as if cinema was able to organize the chaotic impetuosity of memories. This organizational procedure, beyond the editing of sequences, is accomplished through discourse and appears to regulate the fluctuations of sensation that are conveyed through the use of blur, over and under exposures, and abrupt camera movements. Translated into images, the experience therefore can be collectively shared, and is easier to comprehend.

From this point, we ask, is this type of sharing, which plays the game of regulated understanding and participation, pulling these films into coherence or, indeed, the “coherence of the past,” as stated by Guy Debord ? This is the coherence that a number of experimental filmmakers have questioned in their desire to abolish form and conventions of classical cinema. As if for the majority, theirs was a question of “destroying the memory in art,” or “ruining conventions of communication.”

“Voice-off” is used in a similar fashion in certain films by Hoang Tan Nguyen : Pirated(2000) and The Calling (2001). The technique structures the multiplicity of documents that were used to create the film. When Nguyen relates his experience about « boat people » and how his family was rescued by German sailors, he merges sequences taken from Hollywood films with ones from Querelle (Fassbinder, 1982) and then adds filmed or found sequences taken in Vietnam. In this way, discourse and the spoken word give meaning by gathering the many layers of sensation ; the multiplicity of sources enable the emergence of subjectivity at any given moment. The narrative becomes the means by which to organize diversity as well as open spaces from where the camera can twirl around. Indeed, the pauses and the silences in the narrative open the party to new visual shores. Mekas relies on blurry images that are a result of shots taken in haste, whereas Nguyen uses sliding effects and superimposed sequences taken from various sources.

Nguyen’s collection of images distinguishes itself from the filmed diaries in which the accumulation of material is restricted generally to the sphere of the intimate, even though it comes into contact with political or social events (as is the case with Gregg Bordowitz and Marlon Riggs). Nguyen recycles images in a great number of moments : private sequences, as well as undetermined or galvanized ones that in some cases have become clichés. By means of this transfer, new spheres of memory are articulated that conjugate and juxtapose a subjectivity to all incoming images. This process of recycling images and therefore their distribution according to individual fluxes, operates through phenomena of condensation. Such concretion then restitutes the processes of memorization, purporting that many residual noises attach themselves to memory. We realize there is no such thing as a smooth and polished memory, except in the case of (psycho) analytic grids.


Translation by Nathalie Angles

Frame & Context (Eng)

in Scratch book, Ed. Light Cone/Scratch,  Paris 1998

This book is designed to celebrate experimental cinema in its diversity while paying tribute to one of the organizations that has most actively promoted and defended that cinema over the past fifteen years. It seeks to document Scratch’s specificity as a screening venue by presenting the viewpoints of critics and programmers as well as by republishing interviews with filmmakers (some now in French for the first time) which appeared in the ephemeral periodical, Scratch Revue. Also included are graphic and visual material constituting a kind of status report on experimental film.
Scratch represents the commitment of artists – in film and other visual media – to a practice too often undervalued. While the founding of the association responded to a need to reinvigorate the places where experimental films could be screened in Paris, it also denoted – if only by its name – a predisposition to openness and questioning. Far from being a sounding board for any given vanguard, Scratch wanted above all to be different, marginal, fringe : we kept our distance from official history, making our reservations and biases evident through our choice of programs. Scratch therefore represented, in the early years of its existence, an alternative approach to experimental cinema, unique in the deliberate eclecticism of its programming.
After all those years of organizing screenings at various venues, experimental cinema is now enjoying a marked renewal of interest in France, and so we thought it would be timely to review Scratch’s history as a way of taking another look at the personal history of filmmakers and the aesthetic issues raised by their films. This entails showing how alternative organizations conceived and run by artists – workshop-like affairs – can extend beyond their initial field or scope into other spheres, providing models for other contemporary art practices. Like all models, such organizations are just waiting to be superseded. All are highly mobile, allowing them to react rapidly as opportunities arise and to adapt their actions to circumstance, thereby leading to a diversity of projects and sites. Similar mobility and flexibility are now typical of various artists’ collectives and alternative film labs which do not promote a shared aesthetic, but rather provide a way of generating artistic projects that may take the form of « works » or « pieces » or even « events. » That was the role played by Scratch in the realm of experimental movies, based in a specific place yet in contact with other cities and countries. But the stakes are no longer the same. Scratch has a history from which it must free itself in order to envisage other modes of action in the current cinematic context.
Current developments in the visual arts and experimental film have lent support to the idea of producing a publication on Scratch, an idea that originated over dinner one summer evening as Jean-Damien Collin, Miles McKane and myself were discussing the problems encountered by the distribution and screening of films. The book would describe the road already covered even as it remained open to the present, avoiding any clannishness or partisanship ; it would reveal and defend innovative initiatives and unknown (or under-known) filmmakers. Without realizing it, we were influenced by illustrious predecessors who had demonstrated their independence : members of the Close-Up collective in the 1930s and, later, the Fluxus collective (if either can be referred to as a collective). Our detachment from official history encouraged an openness to the new generation of filmmakers, an attitude shared by invited critics and programmers. In the 1980s that meant – as it does today – doing a lot of intensive groundwork in order to bring films, filmmakers, and audiences in contact with one another. This sheds light on our programming decisions – the presence or absence of given filmmakers – which were often designed as responses to other local venues, yet were sometimes totally independent of them. (Venues worth mentioning from those years include the regular screenings at the Centre Georges Pompidou and the Saint-Charles Ciné-Club, as well as occasional events such as FIAG, the Man Ray season, the Rouen festival, and other shows.) Scratch was therefore free to share its passion for a constantly evolving cinema. Its determination to remain independent seemed crucial insofar as it drew these films from the universities, the only place where such films were being made (in those days, schools of fine art showed no interest). Scratch’s decision to challenge history – faithful to a tradition firmly grounded in the visual arts – gave filmmakers a specific screening venue which presented itself as a public workshop or laboratory. As a venue for and by filmmakers, Scratch invited people to « work » their films through its projectors. The workshop aspect was evident in both the regularity of multi-screen projections and in installation events – the first event devised by Scratch simultaneously proposed installations and screenings. Scratch conceived of itself as a system for promoting exchange. The important thing was not being the first venue to show a given filmmaker, but to enable filmmakers to meet other filmmakers during screenings, or to establish a dialogue between artistic practices that remained far too divorced. One of the contradictions of experimental cinema is that it must simultaneously demonstrate its up-to-dateness and assert its past ; this highly unusual situation (within the art scene) makes every filmmaker and every organization a vector and medium of history. Encouraging exchanges between filmmakers seemed of utmost importance to us in (re)establishing screening-and-distribution networks.
This logic of openness and dialogue governed the choice of texts for the book. Rather than just indulge in self-congratulation, we thought it important to call upon filmmakers, critics, curators and programmers who would stress the diverse approaches reflecting the varied publics reached by Scratch screenings. Hence the texts by Gilles Royannais, Nicolas Gautron and Marie-Pierre Duquoc celebrate both the works and the possibilities that Scratch offered them in selecting films and unpacking them. The same angle sheds light on the texts recounting our experiences in Brazil with Gloria Ferreira, and in Italy with Andrea Lissoni and Daniele Gasparinetti, all of whom reacted to the lack of screenings in their respective countries by expressing a desire to collaborate with Scratch. The project with Gloria came together in Rio, in a cycle of artists’ films and experimental movies from the 1970s, shown in the context of Brazilian cinema. The ongoing Italian project faithfully reflects Scratch’s approach by setting contemporary work within a transversal view of history. Both propositions revealed one of Scratch’s underlying characteristics, namely that programming should be perceived not only as a specific stage in the work of a filmmaker – seeing, comparing and confronting films with one another – but also as a place to shake things up. These two lines of approach have often driven our programming over the years, making it possible to create links and networks between filmmakers and programmers.
This faculty of openness is at the core of Scratch’s undertaking, somehow fueling our creativity at all levels. It involves presenting other images – Helga Fanderl, Anne-Marie Cornu, Marcelle Thirache – and making other voices heard. Jürgen Reble, Abigail Child, and Métamkine are a few examples among all those included in The Scratch Book. Discovering a new filmmaker or film is always a special moment, whether it be Mike Hoolboom, Vivian Ostrovsky or Luther Price. The types of sharing proposed by Scratch and by the book are designed to spark encounters, whether through a filmmaker’s photographs or a critique of an artist. They provide (oneself with) the means to see things differently. There’s no question of bringing this history to a close, but rather of celebrating experimental cinema as one of this century’s key artistic practices, a medium that straddles the other arts. This status obliges experimental cinema to constantly excite the associations promoting it, transforming them into transmitters of light.
We hope that this book, like the screenings, will create an irresistible desire to see the films, to program them in other places and other ways, and – who knows ? – maybe to make more of them still.