What is radical film? Radical Film Network Meeting Berlin, May 2-5, 2019, silent green: Program online

“In recent years an interdisciplinary discourse has developed around counter images and movement images, covering all areas of cultural life, including theatre, exhibitions, cinema, TV, and the Internet. It consistently attempts to find new means of narration and representation that undermine conventional codes and conventions by opposing, alienating and deconstructing them by offering different methods of representing and interpreting the world. Discussions surrounding the formats and forms of radical film will be the theme of the event, along with finding ideas to re-contextualise them, with the aim of proving that oppositional and radical filmmaking is as diverse, colourful and lively as ever.” (Julia Lazarus & Ursula Böckler)

The program and the schedule are available here.
What is radical film ?  is a cooperation event of the HaFI.

On Friday May 3, at 7pm, the HaFI presents “Versions of Radicality, 1969/1970: Farocki, Meins, Straschek” (Volker Pantenburg).

What is radical film? Radical Film Network Meeting Berlin
Lectures, discussions and workshops
Do, 02.05.2019, from 5pm
Fr, 03.05.2019, from 10am
Sa, 04.05.2019, from 10am
Su, 05.05.2019, only for the invited participants
Location: silent green Kulturquartier
Gerichtstraße 35, 13347 Berlin
In English, free admission

For the workshop a short formless registration per email is required:
workshop@radicalfilm.net.

* The Radical Film Network Meeting Berlin is supported by the Senate Department for Culture and Europe.

April 24th, 2019, Event / Projects
Interface

Avery F. Gordon, in an interview conducted by Katherine Hite and Daniela Jara in Memory Studies:  “Non-participation is one modality of what I call being in-difference. Being in-difference is a political consciousness and a sensuous knowledge, a standpoint and a mindset for living on better terms than we’re offered, for living as if you had the necessity and the freedom to do so, for living in the acknowledgement that, despite the overwhelming power of all the systems of domination which are trying to kill us, they never quite become us. They are, as Cedric J Robinson used to say, only one condition of our existence or being. Running away, living apart, squatting, communing, feral trading, bartering, self-managed currencies, human, debt, labour, knowledge strikes, boycott, divestment, non-policing, throwing your shoe at an occupying president: the ways of non-participation in the given order of things are many, varied and hard to summarize. And they are taken up for a variety of reasons, including the failure or irrelevance of states and the US–European post–World War II social movement model.”

July 7th, 2020, Tom

Denise Ferreira da Silva via Canadian Art: “Visuality or rather visualizability—being available via social media and accessible through electronic gadgets—seems to have become the main (if not the sole) criterion for reality, which becomes crucial for the ethical-political demands for the protection of black lives, for state accountability and for justice. If that is so, the only way is through these conditions of representation. I mean, the creative move first takes the visualizable as it is, that is, as a twice removed re/composition (at the same time a live streaming, news reporting and documenting) of the scene of violence which only tells us that it happens. It exposes the excess that is the state’s use of total violence, of law enforcement as technique of racial subjugation, while simultaneously removing the black person (the father, the sister, the friend) out of the scene of violence and its visualization. It does so by restoring the dimensions of their existence that the camera cannot capture. That is, the creative move must protect (as an ethical gesture) the black person (keeping her obscurity) in the excess that is the very visualization of the scene of total violence.”

June 28th, 2020, Tom

Ajay Singh Chaudhary on the politics of climate change, via The Baffler: “One of the most common misconceptions concerning climate change is that it produces, or even requires, a united humanity. In that tale, the crisis in the abstract is a ‘common enemy,’ and a perfectly universal subject is finally possible in coming to ‘experience’ ourselves ‘as a geological agent,’ through which a universal ‘we’ is constituted in a ‘shared sense of catastrophe.’ The story I am telling you is different. In this story, there is no universal ‘we.’ Climate change is not the apocalypse, and it does not fall on all equally, or even, in at least a few senses, on everyone at all.”

June 23rd, 2020, Tom
moreless news