Öffentliche Sichtung #13: A RUSTLING OF LEAVES: INSIDE THE PHILIPPINE REVOLUTION, R: Nettie Wild, 16. Mai 2019, Arsenal Kino

Öffentliche Sichtung — Das Harun Farocki Institut präsentiert

Gemäß der Vorgabe, das Format der “öffentlichen Sichtung” für Erstbegegnungen mit Filmen und deren Kopien im Archiv des Arsenal zu nutzen (und getreu einer kleinen Tradition zu feministischen ethnologischen Filmen innerhalb der Reihe) zeigen wir A RUSTLING OF LEAVES: INSIDE THE PHILIPPINE REVOLUTION. Die Regisseurin Nettie Wild siedelt ihre Arbeit in komplexen politischen Konstellationen an–im Dreieck von teilnehmender Beobachtung, parteinehmendem Engagement und radikaler Ethnografie. Ihr erster längerer Film begibt sich zwischen die Fronten der philippinischen Revolution der 1980er-Jahre, deren Widersprüche eskalierten, als mit Corazon Aquino 1986 die erste Frau an die Macht gelangte. Der Film wurde 1989 im Forum der Berlinale gezeigt und fand weltweite Beachtung. So viel, so wenig wissen wir im Moment.

A Rustling of Leaves: Inside the Philippine Revolution
Kanada, 1988, 16 mm, 112 Min, OmU

Öffentliche Sichtung – Das Harun Farocki Institut präsentiert
Do., 16.05.2019, 19:00h
Ort: Kino 2, Arsenal – Institut für Film und Videokunst e.V.
Potsdamer Straße 2, 10785 Berlin
Eintritt frei

25.04.2019, Projekte / Veranstaltung
Schnittstelle

David Graeber (1961-2020) on What Would It Take (from his The Democracy Project. A History, a Crisis, a Movement, 2013, p. 193): „We have little idea what sort of organizations, or for that matter, technologies, would emerge if free people were unfettered to use their imagination to actually solve collective problems rather than to make them worse. But the primary question is: how do we even get there? What would it take to allow our political and economic systems to become a mode of collective problem solving rather than, as they are now, a mode of collective war?“

07.09.2020, Tom

T.J. Demos on why cultural practitioners should never surrender, via tranzit.sk:  „For artists, writers, and curators, as art historians and teachers, the meaning-production of an artwork is never finished, never fully appropriated and coopted, in my view, and we should never surrender it; the battle over significance is ongoing. We see that battle rise up in relation to racist and colonial monuments these days in the US, the UK, and South Africa. While the destruction of such monuments results from and is enabling of radical politics, it’s still not enough until the larger institutions that support and maintain their existence as well as the continuation of the politics they represent are also torn down. This is urgent as well in the cultural sphere, including the arts institutions, universities, art markets, discursive sphere of magazines and journals, all in thrall to neoliberalism, where we must recognize that it’s ultimately inadequate to simply inject critical or radical content into these frameworks, which we know excel at incorporating those anti-extractivist expressions into further forms of cultural capital and wealth accumulation. What’s required is more of the building of nonprofit and community-based institutions, organizing radical political horizons and solidarity between social formations.“

21.08.2020, Tom

Bernard Stiegler, quoted from The Neganthropocene (trans. Daniel Ross): „Does anyone really believe that it is possible to ‘solve’ the problems of climate change, habitat destruction and cultural destruction without addressing the consumerist basis of the present macro-economic system, or vice versa, or without addressing the way in which this system depletes the psychic energy required to find the collective will, belief, hope and reason to address this planetary challenge? Can this consumerism really survive the coming wave of automation that threatens to decimate its customer base and undermine the ‘consumer confidence’ that is fundamental to its perpetual growth requirements, themselves antithetical, once again, to the problems of biospherical preservation?“

14.08.2020, Tom
mehrweniger Kurznews