I started the disappearance cinema.
The disappearance cinema is a film programme that exists out of
non-verbal communicative and non narrative film. The reason why
I choose to use the non-verbale, non narrative is because I think
it could lead to a existential experience that’s not conflated
as a synthesis of the refractive, reflexive and reflective. I
questioned the Brecht approach once thinking of the epic theater
and opposed to that theatrical realism, but I think that there’s a
inbetween field of actual experience once perceiving. So, what is
that what I try to question with the cinema? The easiest answer
would be that I don’t want to drag people into narrative cinema
that might dishes out a narration that we can easily identify,
associate with.
By a lack of speech and a absence of a clear narrative there’s
probably a possibility that the viewer is absorbed by the film
but also gets confronted by his/her own presence while watching
it. This inbetween state is more interesting to me, cause it
results into complex imagery that you need to deal with. Of course,
a absence of speech gives other possibilities, like presence
awareness during such a screening.
Of course, in the sense that with a absence of story, no protagonist
development, a absence of gender and other possibilities of absence
in film it gives the viewer the possibility to undergo and relate
differently.
For what reason? I’m still not that certain, but I would try to develop
that during the actual set-up of this programme which is in between
‘creating’ and ‘curating’.
Of course, the title ‘disappearance’ has everything to do with the
quality of film screenings that happen to be all about disappearing:
1. You attend a screening and leave.
2. A movie begins and ends.
3. The organisator sets up the equipment (beamer, laptopt, etc) and
breaks it down.
4. A absence of direction in film.