The cinema has consistently struggled to be real--rather like 300 years of the Renaissance. In painting - the Renaissance struggled all the time to be "realer "and "realer"--learnt geometrical and ariel perspective and struggled with the aids of anatomy and mathematics to convince the viewers that what was being depicted was to be real - all the way from Giotto to da Vinci--a sort of waste of time--the pre-Giotto painters had a better idea of what to do. We have been doing the same in cinema - and Griffith--praised for introducing narrative into cinema--is really a curse and not a blessing .He decided for the rest of us that cinema should be illustrated books - bad news, a wrong move. And in the same desperate desire to be real--we now have 3D and the apologists say it is more realer than real. Do we need that ? Shouldn't we be putting our energies into something more worthwhile? The human imagination is surely the most amazing thing in the universe. We do not want virtual reality we want virtual unreality. We cannot replicate reality--why are we wasting our time trying?This week I've been reading Joan Didion and working on a digital remix project about the desert. And Greenway's interview was assigned reading for my Digital Studies class. Needless to say, it's been an inspiring week. I spent 4 hours sitting in a chair in a Hollywood coffee shop this afternoon busting out my video/audio editing skills on Premiere. Maybe something will come of it. It feels good to be making stuff again. It's been a long time.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Just some glorious truth from Peter Greenway in the interview he did for the University of Western Australia: