Within this ecological frame, the moment of creation is then more a speculative confrontation with becoming than being “a series of wagers made on the redemptive potential of the world at hand” (18) by cinematic means. Towards this task, looking at “cinema as something more than an archive of finished forms and tales” (18) becomes a methodological requirement. Invoking Deleuze, he argues, therefore, that cinema can do this by rattling our unshakeable habits of thinking, by “carrying perception into things.” The primary objective of this book is then “to put the medium back into the world, back into the environment from which it arises, the web of relations through which it grows”(18). For that kind of shift to occur in our perspectives, it is necessary to cross the confines of our familiar sociocultural worlds and its modes of thought and perceptions. True, but what is the primary objective of this kind of study?ĭescribing our contemporary anthropocene epoch with its disturbing images of all encompassing catastrophe as the appearance of the gigantic everywhere in a Heideggerian fashion, Anand reminds us that when unmanageable chaos is knocking at our door, our only hope remains in generating new ways of seeing that could take us beyond the vanities of human agency and its disastrous effects. Notwithstanding the dominant characteristic of any cinema, the “tyranny of repetition,” as Anand demonstrates this process is always a passionately absorbing moment with the unknown, producing something new and unforeseen. This book turns an ethnographic light towards an unexplored terrain, the creative processes that go into the making of a contemporary Tamil film.
0 kommentar(er)
