AIC, 1988 - AIC Associazione Italiana Autori della Fotografia ...

AIC
turno: milioni di spettatori
valgono tot milioni di pubblicità.'
"Se questo è un uomo..."
verrebbe da dire parafrasando il
libro di Primo Levi.
Da questo punto di vista, perciò,
e se la televisione continuerà a
essere quello che è, non credo
che da essa ci si possa attendere
altro che un impulso,
indispensabile ma incontrollabile,
alla ricerca di carattere appunto
tecnologico, e un aiuto,
encomiabile, di carattere
finanziario, nella produzione di
immagini cinematografiche.
E inutile definire il cinema, anzi
il Cinema, con frasi troppo
intellettualistiche. Il Cinema è la
Vita, la nostra vita, non solo
perché a noi in modo specifico
dà da mangiare, ma soprattutto
perché parla, descrive, si
confonde con l'esistenza nostra
di tutti i giorni. In molti casi ci
fa tornare a provare sentimenti
che temevamo di non più
riconoscere. Ci stupisce di noi
stessi, ecco il miracolo!
Se, come afferma il Professor
Kenneth Mortimer
dell'Università di Pennsylvania,
autore, insieme ad altri
scienziati, di un rapporto
sull'educazione universitaria
negli Stati Uniti, "la tecnica è
per definizione negazione di ogni
verità definitiva, la civiltà
occidentale è destinata
all'angoscia più radicale".
Noi non abbiamo bisogno di
verità definitive, non aspiriamo a
tanto, ma certo abbiano bisogno
di ciò che solo il Cinema sembra
in grado di offrirci: un po' di
bellezza, di poesia, nella nostra
esistenza quotidiana. Il che
equivale a dire, per quanto
riguarda l'immagine, che il
Cinema è l'unico mezzo in grado
di conferirle senso e coerenza.
Non credo che, data la crisi
ormai cronica del cinema
italiano, il suo encefalogramma
piatto possa essere rivitalizzato
da altro che da uno sforzo di
creare quel cinema di qualità
unico in grado di richiamare il
pubblico nelle sale
cinematografiche.
Alcuni registi e produttori
operano in questo senso, e va
loro la nostra stima. A noi, in
quanto operatori
cinematografici, si richiede di
essere tecnici specializzati, ma
profondamente consapevoli di
quanto appena discusso.
Ne va della nostra umanità e dei
nostri sentimenti e, rispetto a
tanto, il resto è veramente
silenzio.
Let's start with a paradox.
For some time now, sociologists over
here has done nothing eke but tell us
we are no longer masters of something
that should essentially be ours: our
own awareness.
And when they use the word
awareness, they don't only mean our
capacity to work out intellectually
adequate answers to the stimuli we
receive from the outside world, but are
referring, above all, to our capacity to
feel, see and listen. In short, our
capacity to be: our being men (or
women, as they too must be included
in this). To be deprived of our
individuality to such an extent, and to
be incapable of relating to the world
around us to an even greater extent,
means being reduced to a mere
shadow, a fake human being, a mask
behind which we even hide from
ourselves. Because at this point we no
longer need to think, or even suffer,
but become mere "objects", the roles
and functions of which are determined
not by ethical values or human
understanding, but by pure casualness
and mere eventuality, beyond which it
is impossible to progress and which
would seem to be exempt from
criticism.
And while the individual shatters into
a thousand meaningless pieces (or so it
would appear) he — who according to
the experts, would be the ordinary
man, and so could, I fear, quite easily
be a focus puller, assistant cameraman,
cameraman or director of photography
— would find himself living in what
would amount to a state of numb
anguish, asking himself questions like:
what sense does my life have? why do I
keep going? for whom?
Our lack of awareness of this
disturbing state of affairs might even
be excusable — after all, isn't money
the only thing that counts, nowadays?
don't you judge a man by his bank
balance? isn't success the only thing
that's important today ? — if it wasn't
thrown in our faces daily by desperate
and tragic acts such as the following: a
short while ago, four youths committed
suicide in Aquisgrana, leaving behind
them a note, the gist of which was:
"We're never going to make it in this
life, so why bother?" This life we have
to live, as Godard would have said.
Who, or what, is responsible for all
this?
A ghost is rattling its chains around
the world, a ghost nobody can catch,
because it is we, who work in its
particular field, who have in certain
instances even gone as far as
mythicizing it. It's name is Technology,
and with its researching, and working
hand in hand with science, it
constantly strives to create a
compartmentalized world — if "world"
is the correct word — in which each
individual is specialized in a particular
field, has his own specific role, but is
not permitted to ask himself too many
question like: in what way does my
specific professional function relate to
that of others? what significance does
my work have? what and/or whom
does it benefit? In short, the
professional man of the Eighties is
required solely to man his post, and
look on his technical and professional
capacities as the only ones that qualify
him as a man rather than consider
them just apart of his qualities.
In this way, man becomes his own
technician, the technician of his
feelings, utilizing his emotions and
awareness like a computer utilizes its
transistors. The rest doesn't count —
"the rest is silence". All he has left is
his habits, but habits which are
cultivated by his almost exclusively
"frequenting" the T.V., instead of his
fellow human beings. No more History,
no more Poetry, no more Memories and
no more Feelings, only — and this is the
paradox that specifically concerns us —
Images... Of every kind and colour,
dazzling and sumptuous, dismal and
dull! However, the disquieting thing
about them is that they reproduce
themselves constantly and are
completely devoid of meaning!
I know this is going to be hard for
some people to take, and they are
going to be offended to hear their
beloved T.V. maligned in such a way;
but, alas, "reality is reality", as the
philosopher would observe sagely. One
also has to agree with Alexander Kluge
when he affirms; "new technologies,
industrial trusts and censors are
working together to create a new
awareness in man" — but they are
creating it on the principal of the
photocopier, so that one person's
awareness will be identical to that of
another.
Speaking of T.V., and also cinema, one
hears people defining the difference
between the two as the cinema's being
more spectacular. 1 have no objection
to this, as long as the word
"spectacular" is used with caution and
in its precise sense. Because when a
"spectacular" image becomes a
technological end in itself, both its
aesthetic and moral value is sacrificied
and it becomes — at best — inexpressive,
and often silly and vulgar, even though
it still manages to "captivate".
It is extremely damaging for the image
to be equated with technology in this
way, as it reduces it to serving, that
same technology which dazzles and
amazes us with its miracles as if it were
thr new Messiah.
When our lives become totally
identifiable with the image, we are, on
the one hand, projecting ourselves in a
technicolour dream which is alluring,
yet also illusory and unreal — however,
no harm done so far, as dreaming is a
part of our lives, and we are all still
free to do so — but, on the other
hand, it sets in motion a strange
psychological process which is
decidedly negative, in which our
virtually direct contact with the world
around us is diminished, and our
natural behaviour patterns are
replaced by artificial ones based on a
type of "automatic functioning created
jointly by science, applied technology
and industrial expoitation"
(Barcellona). Thus, the human being is
reduced to a number, a quantifiable
"audience" which, when it reaches the
astronomical proportions of the private
T.V. audience becomes a commodity
which both T.V. and sponsors bargain
with in turn: "x" amount of viewers for
"x" amount of publicity. "If this is
man..." one finds oneself commenting,
paraphrasing Primo Levi.
Looking at it from this point of view,
and given that television continues to
function on these lines, I don't think
we can expect anything more from it
than its acting as an essential but
ungovernable stimulant to
technological research — which will also
improve the cinematographic image —
and its making a praise worthy
financial contribution to cinema
production.
It is useless trying to define Cinema
with highly intellectual phrases.
Cinema is Life, our lives, not only
because we make our living in it, but,
above all, because it speaks to us, tells
us things and is part of our daily
existence. Many times it allows us to
experience emotions we thought we'd
never experience again. The Cinema
allows us to amaze ourselves constantly
— and this is indeed a miracle!.
Professor Kenneth Mortimer of the
University of Pennsylvania has
compiled a report, with a number of
other scientists, on universitary
education in the United States, and if
it is true, as he affirms, that:
"Technobgy is, by its very definition, a
negation of every definitive truth..."
then "western civilization is certainly
destined to live in a state of perpetual
anxiety".
We can, in fact, do without definitive
truths — I don't think we could ever
aspire to so much — but we do have a
great need of that which only the
Cinema seems able to offer: a little
glamour to brighten up our lives, and a
little poetry to enrich them. Which is
the same as saying that the Cinema is
the only medium capable of creating
an image that is both expressive and
meaningful.
Given the extreme crisis the Italian
Cinema finds itself in, I think the only
way its brain can be resuscitated and
the peaks put back in its
encephalogram, is for it to go all out
create quality cinema, which is the
only kind that will bring the public
back into the movie theatres.
Some producers and directors are
already effecting this "cure" and they
have all our respect. We cameramen
are required to be specialized
technicians, but we also have to
profoundly aware of technology's
compromising effect on the image.
We stand to lose both our capacity to
feel and our humanity, and if that
happens, the rest really will be silence.