The exercise is new to me. To reread what I have written in another time. Over the past decade, I was occasionally prompted to speak on Wang Bing’s film West of the Tracks (2002), which I don’t just consider a great movie but a cinematographic event that changes the state of things we still call ‘cinema’. In Corps et cadre (Verdier, 2002), I regretted not being able to produce a true critique of this film fleuve (of nine hours). The thing was beyond me; it still is. I then resolved to a different tactical approach. To examine what remained of the film in my memory. A film which is that long, a whole which is that intricate, cut into four segments each lasting more than one hour, two hours, three hours, obviously presents a challenge to the memory of the spectator that I am.

Everything, you know, is nothing. The patients in every psychiatric hospital in the world do not exist. Their identity is denied. They have no name. They are simply crazy. In Wang Bing’s cinema we meet two types of characters. Those who have no name, but who describe themselves through action, and those who have a name and act through words. Dumbed by medicines, the madmen of Wang Bing are deprived of the opportunity to tell their story. This is the main issue that the film tackles and solves.

In The Day He Arrives, a soju-fueled cross between Last Year at Marienbad and Groundhog Day, Yoo Seongjun, a lapsed director self-exiled to the provinces, roams the streets and bars of Seoul much as X wanders the hallways and gardens of Marienbad, through an endless repetition of settings, characters, and incidents, each reiteration calling previous accounts into question. “I don’t remember a thing,” the bar owner Ye-jeon insists after Seongjun apologizes for what something he has just done, her protestation recalling A’s many disavowals of the past in Marienbad. Whose version does one trust: his, hers, neither?

Laten we veronderstellen dat het hier niet gaat om het naast-elkaar-bestaan van twee tegenstrijdige aspiraties van dezelfde filmmaker – aan de ene kant het engagement voor de strijd van de onderdrukten, aan de andere kant de ‘esthetische’ gevoeligheid voor het formele spel van licht, van schaduwen en van weerspiegelingen –, dat het politieke karakter zelf van deze films bestaat uit de manier waarop ze blijk geven van de rijkdom van de machtelozen door van hen acteurs te maken in dit theater van schaduw en licht.

“I don’t usually worry about whether the audience will accept the way my film is designed. You are the filmmaker; it is your job to make a convincing work. Instead of worrying about the audience, you should search for ways to make your film a good one. To me, it means to look for, or create, a potentially better cinema that fits your needs in making this particular work. At the same time, your film must be capable of accommodating the living reality of its subject. [...] The technique and style you choose for a film should be appropriate to your subject matter. What is really important is to establish a relation between the subject of your film and your audience. It is the camera that creates this connection.”

In letting go of all chains of causes and effects, knowledge and truth, she becomes a stranger who no longer has a valid place in the layout of paths and traces that others make up to be “reality”; a foreigner out of place and out of reason, lost in the void of uncertainty, in the niente, the nothingness that silently lingers throughout the film.

De juxtapositie van beelden toont een geestelijke samenhang waar we als kijker naar moeten toewerken. In De poes (1968) spreekt van der Keuken het als volgt uit: “De film zou een middel kunnen zijn tot verandering. Hiertoe moet hij de vaste verwachtingspatronen aantasten. Hiertoe moet hij een dynamisch evenwicht scheppen van de vormen waarin onze werkelijkheid beschreven kan worden. Kunst zou een middel kunnen zijn tot bevrijding van de mens. Een school om zichzelf en de anderen beter te zien.”