Watching
Guy Debord films in an attempt to unite personal and academic interests...I love documentaries, and these fall somewhere in that vein. Film or anti film? There is something about a dry capture of reality, the only perspective laid down being in editing choices, knowing where to look and when. Letting reality speak for itself...Well that is not Debord as a filmmaker. Full of subversion, commentary, and artful manipulation, Debord's films are mash ups of mundane reality. Of course, Debord (and the entirety of the Situationist International) protested against the passivity of modern (then modern in 1957, but the idea applies now more than ever) culture, so it wouldn't have fit to make the kind of film that sits back and observes what might chance to happen. While I am brought back the Herzog quote I have mentioned before, about truth only being illuminating when it has some power of viewpoint behind it (he said the phone book was "true" but not a source of important art), I still wonder about what a more sort of "Tao" film making would discover.
Of course, it might all boil down to context...as most things do. Perhaps both kinds are important, depending on situation (and it probably goes without saying that a good eye is necessary in both). Debord's films were overtly political , turning society against itself visually, and it came from an established viewpoint.
Documentaries, both assertive and exploratory, valuable film making.
I do realize I've spent the entire post basically saying I'm watching cool movies and sometimes documentaries are different depending on context, which is pretty pointless. So here are some cool photos for making it this far.
