Author Archives: blindlibrarian

Letter to Alain Cuny by Chris Marker – Exhilaration

Alain Cuny, various portraits, Google images

Here is the English translation of the recently unearthed ‘Lettre à Alain’, originally published in Libération to highlight the 1991 debut of the film L’Annonce faite à Marie, under the title “Chris Marker: ‘Something of a Miracle’, with the sub-title ‘In 1991, for the release of the first projections of L’Annonce faite à Marie [The Announcement Made to Marie], Chris Marker wrote to the ‘young’ filmmaker.’

I take this moment and this space to offer my deep thanks and ongoing gratitude to Dorna Khazeni, who translated this letter for the site’s (majority) English readers. Thanks Dorna! Dorna is also the translator of Marker’s short story Phenomenon (n.), along with a handful of other materials, including the long post on bringing Dialector, Marker’s human-computer interaction machine, to KansasFest. She is one of the reasons I continue to explore Marker, as we share this dedication to his being and his work. What we admire and handle with care is multiple and does not demand defining; it does, however, certainly come across here in Marker’s revelatory moment of heightened awareness, the expressed transformative power of cinema, and his affirmation of friendship.

§

Dear Alain,

Giraudoux wrote that one judges a play (or a film) by how one wakes up the morning after. From this point of view the experience has proven conclusive. But in fact it began as early as yesterday evening when we came back home. How long had it been since I last experienced that sort of physical lightness that surges when something in you has shifted during a screening? And how many films have I seen these last years that I left enumerating, as though for an accounting exam: yes, the director was talented, yes, the actors had been excellent, yes, the images were beautiful, yes, the story was interesting. And so? And so nothing. Nothing had shifted, I had seen a film, that was all, and it was already burying itself in the swamps of forgetting. I knew that ahead of all critique and all compliment, there needed to have been that initial shudder, that takeover over by another by which, in my youth, I used to recognize the works that would mark me for life. I blamed age, the sclerosis of enthusiasm, saturation by television… Know that I am grateful to you for having all at once returned to me the joy in an evening and that flavor of eternity that I sometimes savored on exiting a theater or cinema in the distant times when we had already come to know each other… That you should have arrived in your first attempt at the essential, that you should have (I am sure of this, more instinct than by premeditation) found the precise distance, the perfect distance, with text placed on film like a delicate web (one step to either side is the fall), that you should have, in short, invented the only way of bringing to life and listening to these characters in the booby-trapped universe of the cinematograph, is on the order of a miracle. Just as Violaine’s voice is miraculous. Here we are light-years from the “well-said” or “well-acted.” We are inside inner truth, inside this total correspondence of voice with that of which it speaks which music alone is sometimes capable of constructing: it would not take much for me to say never has a text been the beneficiary of so much rectitude, radiant humility. Humility! Not a quality that overflows in our great craft… Here it underlies every undertaking, it gives its true counterweight to the grandeur. Never is the beauty of the image—and God knows, it is beautiful—exercised at the expense of the text. Costumes, set, music, everything is at its right distance, nothing seeks to shine for itself alone, and this metaphor of the cathedral that holds the whole play in its embrace, here it incarnates itself in the film, itself, like a mise-en-abime, but the abyss opens skyward.

I have just reread what I wrote and these words appear vain and empty. What I must communicate to you is that with which I began, that state of physical well-being that defies commentary (in English there is a word for it that is untranslatable: exhilaration). When we left the Vidéotheque with my friend Catherine we were breathing easier, we were breathing rarer air. I met a friend who shared his distress over the fate of Russia, which I share, all the more so as I have Russian blood and am currently working on that particular tragedy. To my surprise, I heard myself answer him in a totally different way than the somber tone in which I would have normally expressed myself. I was going out on more of a limb, I was placing bets with greater (if only this word were not a little comical when applied to me) wisdom… And suddenly I realized I was not placing my bet from the basement of Les Halles, from Paris-France, I was placing my bet from the film. You were lending me, for one instant, a platform of grandeur from where I was seeing all things as we should always see them, if we had that strength and that wisdom. Poets are made to create such moments, moments of borrowing a strength that is not ours. The poet Claudel and the poet Cuny came together so that last night such a moment should take place. It is a gift that cannot be forgotten.

Yours, faithfully.
Chris Marker

Si j’avais quatre dromadaires

Composed entirely of still photographs shot by Marker himself over the course of his restless travel through twenty-six countries, If I Had Four Dromedaries stages a probing, at times agitated, search for the meanings of the photographic image.MUBI

Avec ses quatre dromadaires
Don Pedro d’Alfaroubeira
Courut le monde et I’admira
II fit ce que je voudrais faire
Si j’avais quatre dromadaires.
Apollinaire

Marker Littéraire: Quoting & Naming

La culture de Marker est grande, qu’il s’agisse de musique ou de littérature, d’art ou de cinéma. Donc rien d’étonnant à ce choix. Mais si ici il donne directement sa source, comme il le fera plus tard pour Une journée d’Andrei Arsenevitch (1999) dont il précisera lui-même le lien avec le premier roman d’Alexandre Soljenitsyne intitulé Une journée d’Ivan Denissovitch, publié dans la revue littéraire Novy Mir pour la première fois en décembre 1962, ou encore avec cette phrase “Je vous écris d’un pays lointain” tirée d’un poème des Lointains intérieurs (1938) d’Henri Michaux et qui ponctue Lettre de Sibérie (1958), la filiation n’est pas toujours évidente ou confirmée, même si on imagine mal une simple coïncidence. C’est le cas de Description d’un combat (Beschreibung eines Kampfes) (1909), le premier écrit conservé de Franz Kafka, une nouvelle entreprise vers 1904 et qui se trouve être le titre du film de Marker sur Israël (1960).Christophe Chazalon, “Courts métrages de Chris Marker”, chrismarker.ch

Marker’s cultural range is great, whether it pertains to music or literature, art or cinema. Therefore there is nothing shocking in this choice [of titles]. But if here he directly cites his source, as he would later for A Day in the Life of Andrei Arsenevitch (1999) – in which he notes himself the connection with the first novel of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn entitled A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch, published in the review Novy Mir for the first time in December 1962 – or again with the phrase “I write to you from a distant country”, taken from a poem in Lointains interieurs [Interior Distances] (1938) by Henri Michaux and which punctuates Letter from Siberia (1958), the [literary] connection is not always evident or explicit, even if it’s hard to imagine a simple coincidence. This is the case with Description of a Combat (Beschreibung eines Kampfes) (1909), the first preserved writing of Franz Kafka, a new enterprise around 1904 and one that finds itself as the title of Marker’s film on Israel (1960).

There are other examples: Sans Soleil from Mussorgsky. The Zone from Tarkovsky’s Stalker. Marker’s animated gallery stroll, Pictures from an Exhibition, again from Mussorgsky. The noted references in Coréennes original back cover to Satie’s Gnossiennes and Pascal’s Provinciales… Marker’s abode in Second Life, Ouvroir, contains a subterranean connection to Oulipo, short for French: Ouvroir de littérature potentielle (the connotations of work, workshop and opening bouncing off each other). Ouvroir also references Bioy Cesares’ Island of Morel, to which Marker refered interested parties when asked to explain Ouvroir. So it was not just in his own naming and alter egos that Marker played with reference and elision; his works too are haunted, littered, scattered, seeded with unmarked references that make fun work for inquiring minds. Though it has gone more or less unexplored in the growing critical literature, Michaux in particular seems to gaze out from between the lines of Marker’s written work and between the frames of his filmed work.

Structure: The Castle & The Garden

The terrain covered in If I Had Four Camelsis organized in two parts, “The Castle” and “The Garden”. Each explores different facets of human achievement and experience, and revisits the utopian ideals that Marker had admired in the work of Giradoux, and figured through African art and the Olympic Games in his earliest films. “The Castle” leans towards the pinnacles of human culture and civilization: cities, societies, art, religion and commerce. […] The photographer confesses that he cannot resist films that pass from country to country at a single moment in time, and, in narrating his own journey around the world via photographs, nods implicitly at those passages in Le Coeur net, Letter from Siberia and Cuba si that had established the route before it.

If “The Castle” leans toward culture, “The Garden” focuses upon human nature, treated as a native impulse towards fulfilment and happiness. Children and animals are shown as ideal representatives of ‘the law of the garden’, but the desire to achieve balance and satisfaction in the human condition is also expressed through the aspirations of revolutionary politics.Catherine Lupton, Chris Marker: Memories of the Future, 103-104

Credits

Director
Chris Marker

Cinematography
Chris Marker

Editing
Chris Marker

Sound
Antoine Bonfanti

Music
Lalan
Trio Barney Wilson

Narration
Pierre Vaneck
Nicolas Yumatov
Catherine Le Couey

Production
Norddeutscher Rundfunk
Apec, Slon

Further Reading

Jim Jarmusch Met Chris Marker

Jim Jarmusch Chris Marker echo

From: truthandmovies.tumblr.com

JIM JARMUSCH ON THE TIME HE MET CHRIS MARKER

There were a lot of things that I couldn’t fit into my recent interview with Jim Jarmusch (which you can read at The Guardian). This is one of them.

“I had a great chance to meet Chris Marker, once. I got to go outside of Paris, he was in a little editing room in it, I think? And this guy Anatole Dauman was a big producer, and he said ‘I pay for Chris to have this little editing room, would you like to go visit him, he would love it.’ And I said, ‘Yeah!’. And I went there, not with this guy, and Chris Marker was in a room about the size of this booth, and he was editing, and he was starting to work in video, early video.

So he took a camera and he filmed me for a while, and he had all these trims in a bin, and he said ‘This is a film project I’m working on, but I don’t touch it, because look inside.’ And inside the bin was a mother cat with her little newborn babies, and he said ‘I leave them alone, they are a priority. So now I work on the video until she takes them out and then I can go back to the film project.’

He was strange and particular and so nice. It was fantastic.”
David Ehrlich

Battle of the Images by Raymond Bellour

First published in French and English “La querelle des dispositifs / Battle of the Images”, in art press no. 262, November 2000, pp.48-52. Translated from the French by L-S.Torgoff.

Les statues meurent aussi

Battle of the Images

Raymond Bellour

If there were an open polemic between today’s competing image delivery systems, some light might at last be shed. As it is, all we have is incertitudes – slip-sliding, straddling, flickering, hybridization, metamorphosing, transition and passages between what is still called cinema and the thousand and one ways to show moving images in the vague and misnomered domain known as Art because it is what art school graduates do.

The convergence about to smack us in the face will mean you can use the same appliance to trade stock, watch a movie, e-mail or make toast. The bottom line is that from now on Intel’s inside everything and our souls are networked, just as for so long “live” meant real-time television as opposed to real life. This means it’s time to reconsider cinema with reference to the only thing that can really distinguish it both from what is now overtaking it and may succeed it and from that which existed before it was born. As Godard put it so succinctly in Histoire{s} du cinema, cinema is film plus project ion, i.e. a recorded image shown on a screen in a dark room. Barthes, not exactly a movie buff, was attracted by the movie house ambience, with its “anonymous, populated, dense darkness” and “the dancing cone cutting a hole in the dark like a laser beam.”

Daney, who did truly love motion pictures, was struck by the motionless silence in which viewers must sit, a state of “frozen vision” with its own history. All this would suggest that movies became what we know today with the advent of the talkies, i.e. the loss of the subtitles and inter-titles that linked them to the theater and the novel, and of the pianist, not to mention the barker,a relic of still more ancient forms of entertainment. It took the first “death of cinema” twenty or thirty years ago to bring back and sanctify silent movies, and for the occasional orchestra or pianist to transform the movie theater into a museum. But above all, as Chris Marker, following Godard, said so well in his CD-ROM Immemory, where a second “death of cinema” is foretold, “Cinema is that which is bigger than we are, what you have to look up at. When a movie is shown small and you have to look down at it,it loses its essence … What you see on TV is the shadow of a film, nostalgia for a film, the echo of a film, never a real film.” Movies were unrivaled and never anything but movies for only a generation or two, depending on when TV started in your local time zone.But since then, despite being surrounded, cinema has continually reinvented itself. And because film continues to be a mirror of the world, as the Lumiere brothers and the first nineteenth-century moving picture machinery in­ tended, a critic’s job is not just to distinguish between good and bad movies but also to diagnose in certain symptomatic films whatever it is that remains of that intended essence and thus evaluate the state of the movies in relation to all the other image systems from which it is under siege.

This was what Daney was doing when he pointed out the degree to which today’s movies are cheating on cinema historically by unabashedly incorporating advertising iconography and hi-tech images. Thus Gladiator mixes whatever remains of Spartacus these days with synthetic dream sequences produced by Imagina software. But on the other hand, there also persists a stubbornly determined effort to make movies in the movie-making tradition, as if film were still alone in the world (the two extremes of this trend are marked by Straub-Huillet and Kiarostami). There are also those who bear ferociously despairing but joyful wit­ness to the new deal, as noted by Daney, observing in Fellini and Godard a passage from “natural” motion pictures to motionless pictures, as the cinema expe­rience becomes one of the spectator’s virtual activity when faced with new, more or less immobile images.

In Smoking No Smoking, Resnais gave us a fictional parallel of wired multiple reality and a narrative that mimics the possibilities of interactivity. With Level Five, Marker invented not the first movie to integrate IT (such firsts are necessarily American) but the first to integrate all the various levels of mutation brought about by the computer in terms of historical memory, subjective destiny and filmmaking. Like Astruc with his “camera-pen,” Marker evokes as lucidly as ever a “possible cinema” enabled by today’s new tools, a “cinema of intimacy, solitude, a cinema worked out face-to-face with yourself, like a painter or a writer.” But “you can’t shoot Lawrence of Arabia like that, or Andrei Roublev or Vertigo.” In other words, it rules out the best Hollywood-style block­ buster tradition, great Russian cinema and the finest auteur movies. All of this may be doomed, because Marker’s concept of “possible cinema” goes along with three gestures of acceptance, on his part, of the “honorable destiny” of the “death of cinema.” The first is his commentator-filmmaker who acts as a guide to this death in the perspicacious and moving homage to Tarkovsky (A Day in the Life of Andrei Arsenevich), in contrast to Godard’s approach in Histoire(s). The second is Marker’s long-term interest in video instal­lations from Zapping Zone (for Passages de /’Image) to his homage to the Silent Movie. The third is his CD­ ROM Immemory, a new genre of self-portrait, both installed in museums and sold like a book.

Or take Chantal Akerman. Twice now she has given in to some felt need to submit her films to the test of installation. With O’Est(au bord de la Fiction) , she has done exactly the right thing, transforming this movie three times in order to create an installation that compares the three un-movie-like display systems through which nearly all films today are shown:museum pseudo-movie theaters, multiple video screens, and television at its best, as a box for experimentation and thought. Projection, circulation, mediation; viewer, stroller-visitor, contemplator — all these physical and mental positions at the service of a single content. Technically lighter but no less significant is her installation now on view in Paris at the “Voila” exhibition, after Boston, New York, London and Brussels; Self-portrait/Autobiography : a Work in Progress. Here there are three monitors in front of which visitors station themselves – the O’Est principle again,but three monitors instead of the eight-times-three. Visitors can sit down in front of two screens to see Jeanne Dielman and the effect is decidedly un-movie-like – each screen shows a dif­ferent parallel narrative; and a single set-back moni­tor offers excerpts from Toute une nuit and Hotel Monterey. A voice-over accompanies the whole thing, Akerman reading excerpts from her book Une Famille a Bruxelles. This is a sort of a documentary about movies, as seen by the filmmaker herself, delivered up in space and transformable in keeping with place and time. This is all the more exciting when at the same time Akerman is presenting La Captive. her most pure and complete work of fiction, one of those films that seem increasingly unlikely these days, and in which cin­ ema achieves a sovereign brilliance.

Such is the un-demarcated tension that calls for a response. When filmmakers give in to the temptation of installation, what is it that they are surrendering to? Raul Ruiz, Peter Greenaway, Atom Egoyan, Harun Farocki, Alexandr Sokurov and Raymond Depardon (I am deliberately skipping the already-classic installation films of seasoned experimental cineastes such as Snow, Sharits, etc.) – they all have their own unique form of spatialization, settings, objects and simulta­neous projections with no time constraints. In a word, they invent one-off setups where, no matter how unique their films may be, each of them puts a little of the movies in the overall mechanism. Further, in the course of their exhibitions, their work is necessarily compared and contrasted with artworks of a differ­ ent order, from photos to installations and all of the innumerable varieties of media and form now fully appropriated by the fine arts. Clearly filmmakers often give in to the wishes of curators. But that hardly alters the question and does nothing to solve the mystery of the mutating works themselves.

Auto-biography of a man whose memory was in his eyes is one of the innumerable versions of Jonas Mekas’ endless diary. But instead of seeing it in one of its possible continuous versions during a structured movie theater showing, in the exhibition at the Paris municipal modern art museum we see it redistributed in three small screening cabins organized around three elements as if this were a CD-ROM. Even more CD-like, outside these non-projection rooms stands a vitrine stuffed with documentation.

Or take another small but perverse displacement, Visione de/deserto conceived by Yervant Gianikian and Angela Ricci Lucchi for the “Deserts” show at the Fondation Cartier in Paris. A row of seats in the back mimics the movies, but in accord with the exhibition visitors’ trajectory, light comes in from the hall, spoiling the movie experi­ence. To avoid it visitors can sit on the cushions piled up along the wall and watch the film sideways. At the entrance, show times have been posted,just like at the movies. The film is the same and yet not really the same as one would see projected in a real movie house, or, for better or worse, recycled on TV.

On the other hand, there are some installations that could not exist without the movies. Revisited, remade, reworked and reduced to slivers,in these pieces film is taken hostage by someone else’s craving for art. Such works comprise a real fantasy of what is being lost, above all because of television, in both art and the movies. But there are also enterprises that evince a twisted and ridiculous desire to pump new life into exhausted art by infusing it with movies in an unsuccessful act of vampirization, a vain attempt at mouth-to- mouth resuscitation between art forms.

Witness David Reed’s insertion of one of his canvases into a sequence form Hitchcock’s Vertigo, as analyzed by Arthur Oanto in After the End of Art. There are also works that through an insanely exaggerated fascination end up teaching us something about both art and cinema – for instance, Douglas Gordon’s take on Hitchcock, from Empire to Feature Film. Between filmmakers drawn to installation art and “artists” for whom movies are raw material,there pulsates an enormous and protean mass of all kinds of installations (from Beat Streuli’s photographic dioramas to James Turrell’s rooms of pure light). For a long time they were dependent on the ideological effects of television and the inherent nature of video itself. Using the most diverse approaches, many of them gradually drew closer to cinema, reappropri­ating certain elements of the machinery of the movies as well as cinematic modes of Figuration and narrative postures — so much so that we can vaguely hypothesize the existence of an alternative cinema.

Two noteworthy examples of this at the 1999 Venice Biennale were the pieces by Doug Aitken and Shirin Neshat. The latter’s new work, Rapture, a more complex piece using the same principle of one monitor for each gender, was a hit at the Lyon Biennale. Faced with these shifts and media straddling, what is a poor critic to do? It would seem incumbent upon us to evaluate these works, in cases where that is worth the effort, from the point of view of dueling image delivery systems, at least in the implicit sense.

For example, it is important to note that so far this year we have already seen two films where the sound track is designed to be created live during the projection, like certain experimental efforts of the 1920s. Manuela Morgaine’s Va, about Casanova, comprises two shorts, one a talkie and the other silent,with the latter’s sound effects added live in Front of the screen (Morgaine defines this as “a kind of theater meant to take place in the Front of a movie theater”). Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster’s ipanema Theory, a very long documentary about the urban environment, is accompanied by invasive music improvised in a sound booth by two new-genre DJs. It was astonish­ing, during the brief discussion that followed the screening, to hear Gonzalez-Foerster tell a theater full of people who had been sitting for two hours that her “film” would be equally suitable for an open-air night-time showing. This is a fascinating indecisiveness that indicates the degree to which things are slipping out of control.

Anyone who attends exhibitions and showings cannot fail to notice the migrations big and small resulting from various mixes of media and presentation systems. It seems a bit premature – you never know – to theorize this phenomenon. Certainly we could see a cautionary tale in the sorry Fate of art theory since World War II, especially in the U.S., where the irresistible urge to concoct canons and labels in the name of painting or the so-called visual arts, of modernism or postmodernism, drew its self-justifi­cation from art history as if the latter were its own private reserve.It would seem wiser to stick to what Foucault called “the basic tasks of description.” That means, today, more than ever, grasping all the arts as part of one single ensemble and analyzing each work in terms of its mix of different art forms, particularly in terms of media, or the artist’s choice of confining oneself to one mechanism alone. What exactly, for example, is Moments de Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jean-Louis Boissier ‘s interactive CD-ROM? A film? A book? A picture album?

This is an unmistakable sign of an aesthetics of confusion about which we still know very little. It seems that computers have gone way beyond the TV that they are about to subsume and are the first machines able to make use of all modes of language and expression, and to transform one into another and modulate them any way anyone wants. They can even simulate installations and play movies.Thus cinema — an impure art, as Bazin said, because it draws its inspiration from all the others and has nothing of its own to offer except reality – is, paradoxically, becoming gradually more pure insofar as its most active verity is becoming that of its mode of display. Cinema will forever be unique, in relation to all the modes that previously seemed similar and also to those that imitate it and parody it today. The most twentieth-century form of art, it is at once more crowded-in now than ever and more alone in its splendor.

Trafic and Serge Daney by Raymond Bellour

Published here: sergedaney.blogspot.co.uk

Trafic and Serge Daney

Raymond Bellour

When Serge Daney decided to found Trafic, a ‘cinema review’, at the start of the 1990s, he began from the ‘realisation that the intellectual landscape in which cinema exists has changed a great deal. Changed to the extent that the traditional ways of writing about cinema do not “bite” anymore in relation to the reality of classic literary cinephilic consumption’. (1) Daney aimed thus at the way that we can live the cinema according to its current state, but at the same time attending to it in its largest possible sense. Undetermined, in the first instance, by the appearance of films as they are released in cinemas or at Film Festivals. Rather, a far more multiple ‘currency’, relating as much to the increasingly diverse evolutions of cinema around the world as to all the various modes of reflecting upon films, and to the life that is lived in their company.

For someone like Daney, who in the 1970s had directed the most prestigious monthly in the history of cinephilia (namely, Cahiers du cinéma), then worked for the ‘cinema’ section of a daily newspaper open (like few others) to current events in culture (namely, Libération), it was a matter, above all, with Trafic (a quarterly publication), of finding a different tempo. A time that is essentially free and vagabond, where it was as much a question of re-seeing as of seeing, and above all of composing an unexpected kind of ‘currency’, defined by the ongoing experiences of each Committee member of the journal, and of every author invited to contribute to it. So this presumes that, in Trafic, the desire to write always takes precedence. ‘Which is a way of saying’, according to Daney, ‘that the intrinsic quality of the texts will always win out over the relative opportunity of their subjects’. Thus it is that this ‘cinema review’ becomes – doubtless alone in the entire world of publications of comparable ambition – a magazine bereft of images, apart from a modest vignette on the cover. Because, in Trafic, it is above all a matter of showing how it is possible to think and write images.

In his programmatic text, Daney enumerated eight types of text destined to co-exist in the magazine. ‘1. Highly personal “chronicles” following, from day to day, what is current in cinema. 2. “Letters From …”, written in a deliberately epistolary style, coming from isolated, faraway friends at the ends of the earth. 3. Texts belonging to cinema’s past (whether French or otherwise) that have become unavailable. 4. Texts by filmmakers, of a “work in progress” nature, moments of assessment, stages or elements in the working process. 5. Texts more precisely dedicated to the “image” in general, and to the way in which such images illuminate, or are illuminated by, the cinema. 6. Free interventions by philosophers, writers, novelists. 7. Regular essays, cinephilic but gregarious’. Daney could also have specified that the magazine also pursues, as part of its vocation, the translation of many foreign texts – in order to reverse the dominant tendency in France, especially in approaches to cinema, towards national self-sufficiency. But the presence in the first issue of Trafic, out of fourteen texts, of Giorgio Agamben, Roberto Rossellini (presented by Adriano Aprà), Joao Cesar Monteiro, Robert Kramer and Bill Krohn was enough to make that point. And the ratio, since then, has only increased.

Already consumed by AIDS at the moment of this first issue, Daney only lived long enough to see the first three instalments of this adventure of a magazine which meant more to him than anything else. But a drive had been initiated, which would then be continued, strengthened, developed and varied, thanks to the energy of an Editorial Committee formed as a collective, comprising Jean-Claude Biette, Sylvie Pierre, Patrice Rollet and myself. After Biette’s sudden death in 2003, and the realisation of an enormous 50th issue, both a celebration and a retrospective, the idea of which (titled ‘What is Cinema?’) we had conceived with him, we added an Advisory Committee comprising close friends of the magazine since its inception, people who stood for its many vocations: writer Leslie Kaplan, filmmaker Pierre Léon, philosopher Jacques Rancière, film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum, art historian and writer Jean Louis Schefer. Each one helps us, in their own way, to fashion the image of a singular cinema magazine.

If I had to define Trafic in terms of its refusals, they would be positioned at two extremes: on the one hand, the facilities that are far too common in journalistic criticism, and on the other hand the closures of traditional university writing. But both film critics and university teachers write, of course, for Trafic, provided they are carried away by a project of thought and style in which they are deeply engaged, and closely wedded to their choice of object as well as their personal sensibility. Parallel to a continuous reflection on the great works of cinema, whether classical or modern (Mizoguchi, Walsh, Antonioni, Fassbinder, Ozu, Syberberg, Minnelli, Hitchcock, Lang, Ford … with two special issues devoted to these last three names), we have always chosen to support – by asking them to participate, whenever possible, in the life of the magazine – a certain group of filmmakers, as diverse as possible, including (naturally) experimental filmmakers: for example, Manoel de Oliveira, Chris Marker, Stephen Dwoskin, Chantal Akerman, Edgardo Cozarinsky, Ken Jacobs, Pedro Costa, Jonas Mekas, Philippe Garrel, Angela Ricci Lucchi and Yervant Gianikian, Robert Kramer, Joaquim Pedro de Andrade, Abbas Kiarostami, Harun Farocki, and Philippe Grandrieux.

Extract from an essay published in the Masterclass booklet of the Jeonju International Film Festival, Korea, 2009.

NOTE
1. These words by Daney, like those that follow, are extracted from the short programmatic text which accompanied publication of the first issue of Trafic in Winter 1991.
© Raymond Bellour March 2009. English Translation © Adrian Martin March 2009.