as far as i know there is a project to do with the Jacobs Museum / Foundation in Zurich Switzerland to preserve the ‘Haitian Rushes’ there was an exhibition there in 2016 https://johannjacobs.com/de/formate/maya-deren-die-haitian-rushes/
best Kerstin Schroedinger schroedinger.blackblogs.org +49 179 473 2258 > On 26. Aug 2020, at 2:27 AM, David Baker <dbak...@hvc.rr.com> wrote: > > Chrissie, > > If you would allow the discussion to expand to Black Lives Matter > a film comes to mind I have only seen in an excerpt at Anthology on Jan. 26, > 2010 <https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/arts/dance/28lost.html> > as part of a program presented by Danspace Project, > Maya Deren’s Unedited Haiti Footage. > > When I saw this work I was overwhelmed by its consequence. > I was very familiar with the Ito/Winett edit of this material, > Divine Horsemen: The LIving Gods Of Haiti (1954). > However the experience I had with the fragment of Unedited Haiti Footage was > very different, > an order of cinematic magnitude I have never forgotten and always wished > to see in its entirety. > > Immediately after the program I brought my ardor > to this forum. > Pip lent important information, > >> We screened the totality of Maya Deren's Haiti Footage on April 4th, 2004 at >> 4pm in the Auditorium du Louvre in Paris. The screening was organized in >> parternship with Anthology in the hopes of raising money to preserve the >> footage. Jonas Mekas dedicated the screening to Jean Rouch. >> >> What was actually screened was 240 minutes of silent 16mm footage, the >> complete unique print, the first and only time it has been screened in >> Europe. The auditorium was full, so over 400 people saw this footage that >> day. Nobody came forward with funds to preserve it. >> >> The footage is beautiful. It should be preserved - a new internegative could >> be struck for a few thousand dollars and a print could circulate. Deren >> never touched the footage or edited it our of allegiance to the voudoun gods. > > > > Vociferous discussion ensued. > > Jonas Mekas in a rare appearance by way of Andy Lampert sent this: > > "Andy, please let all well-meaning but little informed enthusiasts know that > the work on preserving HAITI footage has been going for several years now > with Martina Kudlacek and myself in charge of it. Martina has put a lot of > work into it, and has prepared a detailed description of materials , a plan > for how to go about the preservation work, and a budget for doing that work > which in 2005 was c.70,000 but I figure now it will be over $100,000. > Martina is returning back to New York to continue the work this March, so it > will be at that time that we'll have an updated budget and updated plan how > to go about it (changing technologies have opened other choices and > possibilities). In 2005 all my efforts to find suport for sponsoring the > project ended on dead ears. It looks like it took an earthquaque and > destruction of half of Haiti, to open some ears and eyes. No guarantee that > this will also open the checkbooks, but all of you, excited well meaning > people should know that I have never given up on any of the projects that I > worked on, you should know that much about me by now. Maya's HAITI film will > be preserved and made available to all. And so will be our LIbrary wing built > too. On the completion of Anthology, our Cinema Cathedral, I have been > working for thirty years. On completion of Maya's HAITI I have been working > only for five years. Both cathedrals will be completed, I promise you that. > But I want you to know that talking, no matter how enthusiastic and > well--meaning, has not built any cathedrals yet. I need your concrete, in > this case your money, to complete the two cathedrals. > Jonas" > > Ten years later I am wondering how this ineffable work on such an > extraordinary subject by an auteur as consequential as Maya Deren is still > invisible, endangered, unknown. > > Your esteemed thoughts would be most appreciated. > > David > > PS Hannah Frank’s Frame By Frame matters to me too. > > >> On Aug 25, 2020, at 5:35 PM, Chrissie Iles, Curatorial >> <chrissie_i...@whitney.org <mailto:chrissie_i...@whitney.org>> wrote: >> >> Most importantly, what are we all doing to support Black filmmakers and >> thinkers, and expand the discussion beyond the Eurocentric model to take on >> the larger, more inclusive post colonial thinking that is now so urgent. >> We’re in the middle of the biggest uprising in American history, and that >> changes everything and honestly blows all this out of the water in terms of >> what we need to be thinking about now. >> Chrissie >> >>> On Aug 25, 2020, at 1:48 PM, Michael Betancourt >>> <hinterland.mov...@gmail.com <mailto:hinterland.mov...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Bernie, >>> >>> Thank you for reminding me why I don’t get involved in these discussions. >>> Not in decades ... but animation and avant-garde film is a topic that is of >>> personal interest. So, let me begin by saying that there is no emotion in >>> this response I’m writing. I'm not angry, upset or anything except >>> (perhaps) a bit disappointed. But I’d done with this discussion since I >>> recognize a pattern of "gas lighting." You can claim I'm being over >>> sensitive, that's fine. I'm not interested. This is not the start of a >>> flame or me walking away in a "huff" because you're "right" (I don't think >>> you are, and I'm not), but simply my giving up on the discussion entirely >>> as I have more important and useful to me ways to spend what time I have; >>> if this seems rude or confrontational, I'm sorry, but that is not the >>> intention here. This is me making a polite exit, one where I do not accept >>> the behavior I have observed directed at me. >>> >>> So my response is simply, “No. I’m done.” >>> >>> >>> >>> For readers who haven’t been following, or who don’t understand what I >>> mean, go through the other posts. "Gas lighting" someone in a discussion is >>> an attempt to make the person you’re “conversing” with feel like they don’t >>> know what they’re talking about, to make them doubt their expertise, >>> knowledge, ideas. It is an attempt to make the challenge posed by their >>> comments present go away. Recognizing it is simple. It works like this: >>> >>> First, claim to have been unclear and explain a point that was perfectly >>> obvious. This creates the sense that your comments have been misunderstood >>> and makes the person being gas lighted doubt their comprehension. >>> >>> Then, deny (some or all) of what the other person has been said, dismissing >>> it as irrelevant or incoherent. Ignore the rest. >>> >>> Next, drop in a few ad hominem asides during your comments that are >>> irrelevant, but put the other person in “their place.” (These can be used >>> to attach what you think are their credentials.) >>> >>> Finally, introduce a non sequitur argument phrasing it so it can be seen as >>> an attack. Whether it's coherent or relevant doesn't matter so long as it >>> becomes the focus of discussion. Feel free to contradict your earlier >>> comments since it doesn't matter what you're saying so long as the person >>> you're addressing feels they don't know what they're talking about and >>> defer to your "expertise." >>> >>> >>> >>> So as I said, I’m done with this discussion. Feel free to have the last >>> word. >>> >>> Michael Betancourt >>> Savannah, GA USA >>> >>> >>> michaelbetancourt.com <http://michaelbetancourt.com/> | >>> vimeo.com/cinegraphic <http://vimeo.com/cinegraphic> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:47 AM Bernard Roddy <roddy...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:roddy...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> Greetings, Michael. >>> >>> There was ambiguity in my sentence regarding Pip. When I wrote that I think >>> "he" sees himself as doing philosophy, I am referring to Deleuze. >>> >>> There is way too much to try to address in your post. But whenever you >>> introduce audiences, I think you are off track. Or, you are not talking >>> about philosophical questions, whatever people teaching film studies might >>> happen to say. >>> >>> There is a priority on narrative in Delueze. This I see as distracting >>> given my priorities. And all these questions about language derive from >>> literary cases of narrative. Remember Pasolini and the "cinema of poetry," >>> which was supposed to conceive of cinema as unlike the written story? >>> >>> Of your quotations, the one from pp. 26 - 27 bears on narration. Deleuze >>> seems to be asking what explains the appearance of narration when it >>> appears. And he seems to be less inclined to adopt the terms from >>> linguistics that were so common in discussion of cinema during the heyday >>> of Barthes and semiotics. >>> >>> Only at the end do you take up what I find a manageable question, and the >>> one at stake for me here. I wouldn't say the question concerns Deleuze >>> exegesis. It was, rather, in what way are we going to think about >>> animation? >>> >>> And yet, given the right focus, I would like to enjoy Deleuze's work. I >>> just opened to p. 56, where he mentions Bergson and Husserl, and where this >>> term "movement-image" seems to receive a definition. Think of movement as >>> non-mental and image as mental. The long history of discussion around how >>> the mind and body could interact comes back to the surface, but where >>> "mind" is now "image" and the "external world" is represented by "movement." >>> >>> That's a history making its way into what we would probably appreciate more >>> if it presupposed a little less. These are extremely attenuated summaries >>> of chunks from modern philosophy. And with them Deleuze spins his own >>> equally abbreviated thinking. >>> >>> For me, it was about the appearance of movement in cinema and how it is to >>> be explained. But the cinema has offered a model for explaining the same >>> appearance in everyday perception. So, what we have is a history of >>> philosophy that has thought in terms like film strips offer (and long >>> before cinema, as it happens). >>> >>> My reference to Husserl presents the alternative. You may want to think >>> about differences between past and future frames, but you'll end up with >>> nonexistent parts of something that is supposed to be presently observed >>> (what is past is gone). So in Husserl we have an incredibly developed >>> alternative nobody bothers with. (And who is really going to know what >>> Derrida's thinking about Husserl involved? I mean, seriously.) >>> >>> Option 1: You understand time as if it is made up of moments that can be >>> divided. The model is space. Option 2: You realize that you only perceive >>> what is present. And you also realize that doing geometry isn't the same as >>> drawing conclusions from your little sketches. In geometry, Husserl says, >>> you work with essences. There is a point of contact with your sketch, but >>> your basis for thinking is not empirical. >>> >>> And so we have Ariadne and the construction of space without temporal >>> parts. We have geometry done on a grand scale. And we have an alternative >>> for the person who shoots frame by frame her drawings of figures - or the >>> navigation of her architectural designs. >>> >>> Bernie >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> FrameWorks mailing list >>> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com <mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com> >>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >>> <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> FrameWorks mailing list >>> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com <mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com> >>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >>> <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks> >> _______________________________________________ >> FrameWorks mailing list >> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com <mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com> >> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
