By Jason Apuzzo. It appears that we may have a new film movement afoot, inspired by the Occupy Wall Street protests: “Occupy Cinema.” For the moment this movement seems to be situated around just a few sites: Cine Foundation International, Occupy Cinema and Cinemas In Solidarity. However, I sense a trend growing – a filmic uprising that may change the cinema as we know it.
Or not.
I recently watched two of the film offerings at Cine Foundation International, and decided to embed their latest – a short film titled “#Occupy Cinema Untitled 1” – above, for LFM readers’ consideration. Frankly, I wasn’t quite sure what to make of the film, so I decided to email my old colleague, Professor Jacques de Molay, Professor of Cinema & Neurosemiotics at the University of Northern California. I was very eager to seek out Jacques’ opinion about the film – as he’s always had a better feel for radical, transgressive cinema than I do.
As regular Libertas readers know, Jacques is a widely recognized Marxist intellectual, and last appeared on our site here to provide a guest review of Piranha 3D, which he liked very much – interpreting the film as a subversive parable on ‘consumerism.’ As Jacques put it at the time, reviewing Piranha: “after the Wall Street collapse, commerce in today’s capitalist society can only end in bloody apocalypse – a farrago of bikini tops, chewed limbs … and shattered ideals.”
With this in mind, I asked Jacques what he thought of the film above. He emailed me this reply, from his vacation home in St. Bart’s:
“In his early essay on Peckinpah’s Wild Bunch, my late colleague Jacques Derrida held that ‘[n]arrativity is part of the economy of culture”; however, in the era of Occupy Wall Street, it is not so much ‘narrativity’ that is part of the economy of culture, but rather the failure, and some would say the ‘stasis,’ of ‘portable septic tanks.’
“In “#Occupy Cinema Untitled 1,” the subject of the film is cleverly contextualized into a socialist-realist paradigm by which existential ‘boredom’ is encoded as its meta-language, like the ‘snooze button’ on our capitalist alarm clark. “Wake up!” the film seems to be saying – ironically, by inducing somnolence in the viewer. In “#Occupy Cinema Untitled 1,” paint literally seems to be drying before our very eyes. This is a strategy not undertaken with such visual eloquence since the early days of Joss Whedon’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer period.
“Quite obviously, it could be said that the main theme of the film is the role of the observer as participant. In a sense, “#Occupy Cinema Untitled 1” implies that in Herman Cain’s America, we the viewer (as viewed) must choose between a socialist-realist ‘vision’ for the cinema or a dialectic de-sublimation – consisting of entrenched sexism, textual or ‘pre-deconstructive’ theories of market value, or the sardine topping. Indeed, in “#Occupy Cinema Untitled 1,” it may be safer not to ‘bite-in’ to capitalism’s ‘deep dish,’ after all.”
Well, there it is. Jacques is obviously is seeing a lot more in this short film than I am. In any case, here at Libertas we’re committed to providing a platform for freedom of speech and a diversity of ideas – including those of today’s progressive left. We’d like to thank Prof. de Molay for his unique contributions to our understanding of “#Occupy Cinema Untitled 1” and of the radical potentialities of today’s “Occupy Cinema” movement.
Posted on November 18th, 2011 at 1:50pm.
This is my first sighting of the esteemed Dr. de Molay in the reincarnated Libertas. It is a great honor to be once again enlightened by his writings although I am afraid to admit my philistine bourgeoisie mind does not grasp the meaning of half the words in the piece.
If you can pass on a question to Dr. de Molay. Has he participated in the Occupy Oakland movement and would he be able to share his observations on the Occupy encampment that has has grabbed the most headlines even topping New York and I dare say San Francisco. (Shame on you San Francisco for letting Oakland out protesting THE CITY).
#Occupy Cinema Untitled 1 sounds like something out of the early pre-Stalinist Soviet Union.
Michael, thanks so much for your thoughts. I just sent a message to Jacques’ Blackberry, and here’s his response:
Please inform your readers that yes, I did briefly attend one ‘Occupy Oakland’ event, visiting Snow Park with Lupe Fiasco prior to his concert. Unfortunately I had a prior commitment to deliver a paper at Berkeley’s “The Mythopoetics of Birkenstock” conference the same week or I would’ve remained longer.
Bolshevik Professor Jacques de Molay?
Thanks, Jason!
We Patriots did not have that name on our proscription list in the soon-to-be Second U.S. Civil War and now we do.
Only joking:-)
The OWS couldn’t start a civil war with The Tea Party Movement (TPM) in a million years:-)
… and we all know that civil wars, revolutions, concentration camps and proscription lists of “traitors” never happen in the United States of America.
But such a theme would make a good movie.
How’s this for a plot?
A Manchurian president is elected who wrecks the economy in order to enable the New Bolshevik Party to occupy the country…
Cheers, Ronbo
Thanks, Ronbo, but Jacques really objects to being called a Bolshevik. He’s actually more of a Menshevik.
At least he isn’t calling himself Trotsky…yet.
I think Jacques is uncomfortable identifying himself with Trotsky while in Latin America, if you catch my meaning.
Jacques makes one giant mistake in his assessment: He thinks the United Stated is a capitalist country. Sorry, but it’s just a fact. Who controls most of the capital? Not the capitalists — unless you call the government the capitalists.
Government is our biggest employer, biggest insurer, and biggest lender. And in states above the Mason-Dixon, unions control pretty much everything.
We really have to take the red pill, and see that our freedom with capital is truly an illusion.
This Occupy movement is so insanely stupid, it’s almost beyond comprehension. If they’re really angry about corporatism, they should moved down to Washington, which makes all of the socialist policies that create the problems we have in the market. Any imbalance that may be occurring is because of the very politicians that are — unbelievably — supporting this aimless, vapid “movement.”
I texted Jacques with some of your concerns, Vince. Here was his reply:
“The reader ignores post-colonialist concerns of class and gender. Is that because he himself is part of the ruling class, part of the ruling 1% of white, phallocentric elites? ‘Class is part of the defining characteristic of narrativity,’ said my late colleague Lyotard back in the 80s, usually during commercial breaks of Knight Rider. Apropos of the film above, Lyotard suggested the use of social realism to deconstruct outdated, colonialist preconceptions of class. Of course, it could also be said that the example of materialist ‘pre-cultural’ theory (which is a central theme, for example, of the Traci Lords-Roger Corman Not of this Earth) is also evident in “#Occupy Cinema Untitled 1” – significantly complicating matters for my own (neo)textual reading of the film.”
I’m not quite sure what to make of that, Vince. Does it answer your question? It’s so hard to get these guys to say anything concrete.
Ummm … all I said was that the U.S. is no longer a capitalist country because most capital is in control of the government and the Fed. Everything I said is a fact, and the Ocuppy people are under the assumption that Wall Street is a bastion of capitalism, when there’s no entrepreneurialism there at all.
So … I don’t know about post-colonial concerns in other countries — mostly because I was born and raised in the U.S., and I’m not one who subscribes to the post-colonial intellectual school. I think Marxists are attracted to it because it’s based so much on race and what it deems as imperialism … and operates under the assumption that it’s ALWAYS an evil thing.
And I don’t think post-colonialism in theory is applicable to the United States since out colonial era ended not with a revolution — as is always stated — but with independence. Our Founding Fathers were colonial spokesmen, whose command of British law fueled their debates. John Adams’ Braintree Introductions held the Britain’s taxes were unconstitutional in 1765.
Certainly the idea of class has changed since the Declaration, but what ALL Marxists ignore is the impact of Christianity on civilization, and specifically the United States. Christianity told people that Jesus died for ALL of them, and that fact was the single most powerful thrust in the heart of state-worship.
Consequently, the United States is the first government in the history of the world to put that theory in our governing documents. A creator gave us life and liberty, not man — so man can not take it away.
Govindini has eluded to this in some of her writing here — very deftly, I may say. She has also said she is not a Christian, but acknowledges those contributions to Western Civilization … this is why this site s so strong. It embraces the human right to freedom and self-determination.
I use that as an example, because it is intellectually honest. You don’t have to be a Christian to benefit from its impact on the U.S. and the free world.
Marxists like Jacques ignore this, and then make the anthesis the basis of their argument. This is why I usually don’t engage Marxists.
Luckily, I’m at work, which is slow now. I can’t believe how Marxist intellectual masturbation gets me every time.
Vince, thanks so much for your eloquent comments, and thoughtful disputation. I certainly appreciate your argument here, although I assume Jacques might demur. 😉 Personally, I’m very much of the opinion that America is not a ‘colonial’ power, properly understood. I’ve never been able to convince Jacques of that, however.
I’ve been trying to reach Jacques to get a response to your comments, particularly on the whole Christianity issue, but he’s apparently getting a holistic massage on the beach before appearing at an eco-conference on biodiversity. I really envy his lifestyle, sometimes.
The Marxixst professor “e-mailed from his vacation home on St. Barts”…..the irony, no?
The irony … yes!
Comrade, I must protest your comment that reeks of middle class capitalist Ayn Rand objectivism!
Clearly you do understand that all comrades are equal, but some are more equal than others.