|
 |
|
Manuel Vidal
It is not common for a filmmaker to investigate still images through moving ones. In general, the journey is in the opposite direction. Numerous examples can be given of photographers who confirm this, among them Robert Frank, William Klein, Roger Vadim and Raymond Depardon, who after starting as photographers became film directors. There certainly are also many cases of filmmakers who have complemented or broadened their activities through photography: Leni Riefenstahl, Wim Wenders, Carlos Saura and Abbas Kiarostami are only a few examples that come immediately to mind. However, what these filmmakers do, tends to be an extension of their work in cinema: their photos are a prolongation of the visual universe of their films, to the point that some of the stills from their films, in isolation, could pass for some of their photographs. To quote Barthes, we could say that in their photos "the event never goes on to become something else", and in this sense refer only to what can be seen and "are somewhat redundant" (1), in that they do not break the rules of the medium. The case of John Waters is very different, however, since his photographic work is very intensely involved with cinema: it is not separate from it, but rather takes it as its object. In fact, he becomes a photographer while remaining a filmmaker - and a very critical filmmaker at that, since his explorations are focused on filmmaking itself and on the content of the moving images (of whatever kind). And more importantly, they refer to the differences arising from repetition.
What seems to motivate him, therefore, is not taking a break from cinema, but rather looking more deeply into it, strengthening his relationship with films through another medium in order to bring about their photogenic implosion, de/construction - seeing (or detecting) the opportunities inherent in this action. Thus, through his peremptory immersions in film images viewed on a television screen, using a photographic camera for eyes, he obtains the material for his compositions. The result is a new object, somewhere between cinema and photography: borderline objects, both autonomous and dependent. And objects whose own genealogy takes precedence over their possible transcendental quality. At first sight this would seem to reduce the cinematic universe - or the audiovisual one if you prefer. Observed with greater attention, these objects have the effect of formalizing a discourse - one which suggests more than it actually states and which reveals and shows more than it may mean. They establish, therefore, a space with textures revealing not only a referent but also leaving a great number of tracks that both attract us and throw us off the trail, indicating a conflict between the subject (creator or producer) and the material on which they are projected and handled (cinema or pre-existing images). And it is these tracks (involving techniques that are of little importance) which open up to sensations and offer flavors to be tasted. We are invited, in their presence, to make purely aesthetic readjustments basically rooted in a hedonistic order located beyond the orders of understanding and of production. (…)
|
