sábado, 17 de outubro de 2009

Even though theatre and cinema can arrive at the same spiritual result, the means they use are completely different, and even opposite. That's why I had problems in the theatre. For me the reality of theatre is always based on something completely false, and assumed as such; that is, for the theatre to be real, the actors and the audience have to be aware at all times that they are in the theatre, and that they are using and recognizing codes: it's through the absolute falsity of these codes that they arrive at an absolute truth. Whereas in the cinema - which is of course also a representation - the basic raw material is always a reality, whether it's that of a human being, an inanimate object, some sort of material, a tree, or an animal: in every case, the shot contains a real energy. The specificity of cinema is to capture fragments of reality, and to make the spectator see in them things that he wouldn't have been aware of had he observed them in their natural context. That's why for me cinema is always a spiritual expression: it can make you see things which are invisible in the material world...

3 comentários:

Anônimo disse...

Esa entrevista es muy buena. Se olvida a veces el trabajo ¿teórico? ¿meramente empírico? de Eugène Green, cuyo libro es tan fascinante, insólito, asombroso y misterioso como las películas.
Miguel Marías

bruno andrade disse...

Não li o livro, Miguel, nem sabia que existia. Só em francês?

Anônimo disse...

Sí, claro. No muy grande y con muchas fotos. Editado por Cahiers con DDB, se titula "Présences".
Miguel Marías

Arquivo do blog