Advertisement

An Other Documentary Is Possible: Indy Solidarity Video and Aesthetic Politics

  • Freya Schiwy
Part of the Global Cinema book series (GLOBALCINE)

Abstract

Some time ago, film scholar Jane Gaines wondered what “moves viewers … to do something instead of nothing in relation to the political situation illustrated on the screen” (1999, 89). Is what moves an audience created by the film’s argument or through its visceral effect and bodily reaction? Gaines suggested that “political mimicry,” that is, an audience’s offscreen continuation of the struggle depicted on screen, “has to do with the production of affect in and through the conventionalized imagery of struggle: bloodied bodies, marching throngs, angry police. But clearly such imagery will have no resonance without politics, the politics that has been theorized as consciousness … ” (92). Gaines draws attention to the way political documentary uses form and argument together to create a film’s impact on its audience, noting that this impact will be most effective if the audience is not neutral, not an objective observer, but rather already involved in creating social change. The political documentary in this sense appears as intimately related to activism as profilmic and postfilmic events, while at the same time such a documentary itself constitutes a politically creative intervention.

Keywords

Social Movement State Violence Social Struggle Indigenous Organization Revolutionary Struggle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albertani, Claudio. 2009. “Recapturing the Spirit of 2006: Reflections on the Second Statewide APPO Conference.” Translator unknown. Accessed on October 19, 2009. http://elenemigocomun.net/
  2. Burton, Julianne. 1990. “Democratizing Documentary: Modes of Address in the New Latin American Cinema, 1958–1972.” In The Social Documentary in Latin America, edited by Julianne Burton, 49–84. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.Google Scholar
  3. Carroll, Noël. 1999. “Affect and the Moving Image.” In Passionate Views. Films, Cognition and Emotion, edited by Carl Platinga and Greg M. Smith, 21–47. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  4. De Castro, Sergio. n.d. “Anarchism and Libertarian Currents in the Oaxaca Insurrectionary Movement.” Translated by Capital Terminus Collective. Accessed October 20, 2009. http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-libertariancurrents-the-oaxaca—insurrectionary-movement
  5. Denham, Diana and C.A.S.A Collective. 2008. Teaching Rebellion. Stories from the Grassroots Mobilization in Oaxaca. Oakland, CA: PM Press.Google Scholar
  6. Downing, John D.H. with Tamara Villarreal Ford, Genève Gil and Laura Stein. 2001. Radical Media: Rebellious Communication and Social Movements. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Esteva, Gustavo. 2007. “Oaxaca: The Path of Radical Democracy.” Socialism and Democracy 21 (2): 74–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Esteva, Gustavo. “The Oaxaca Commune and Mexico’s Autonomous Movements.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  9. Eyerman, Ron and Jamison Andrew. 1998. Music and Social Movements: Mobilizing Traditions in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaines, Jane M. 1999. “Political Mimesis.” In Collecting Visible Evidence, edited by Jane M. Gaines and Michael Renov, 84–102. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  11. Grupo Cine Liberación/Octavio Getino and Fernando E. Solanas. [1969] 1988. “Hacia un Tercer Cine.” In Hojas de Cine Vol. 1. Mexico: Secretaria de Educación Pfiblica/Universidad Autónoma de México/Fundación Mexicana de Cineastas.Google Scholar
  12. Hardt, Michael. 2007. “Foreword. What Affects Are Good For.” In The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social, edited by Patricio Ticineto Clough with Jean Halley, ix-xiii. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Massumi, Brian. 2002. Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. May, Todd. 2010. Contemporary Political Movements and the Thought of Jacques Rancière: Equality in Action. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nemser, Daniel. 2009. “Cultures of Democracy in the Americas: diascape, Oaxaca 2006.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  16. Nevaer, Louis E.V. 2009. Protest Graffiti: Mexico Oaxaca. New York: Mark Batty Publisher.Google Scholar
  17. Nichols, Bill. 1991. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Podalsky, Laura. 2011. The Politics ofAffect and Emotion in Contemporary Cinema: Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, and Mexico. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rancie, Jacques. [ 1995] 1999. Dis-agreement: Politics and Philosophy. Translated by Julie Rose. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  20. Rancie, Jacques. 2004. The Politics of Aesthetics. Translated and introduced by Gabriel Rockhill. Afterword by Slavoj Zizek. London: Contiuum.Google Scholar
  21. Rodríguez, Clemencia, Dorothy Kidd and Laura Stein, eds. 2010. Making Our Media: Global Initiatives Toward a Democratic Public Sphere. Vol. 1 Creating New Communication Spaces. Eurocom Monographs: Communicative Innovations and Democracy. Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  22. Sanjinés, Jorge and Grupo Ukamau. 1979. Teoría y práctica de un cine junto al pueblo. México: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
  23. Schiwy, Freya. Forthcoming. “La invitación abierta: Algunas notas sobre la estética, lo político y el videoactivismo mexicano.” In Efectos de imagen: Qué fue y qué es el cine militante? coord. Elixabete Ansa Goicoechea y Oscar Cabezas. Santiago de Chile: ARCIS.Google Scholar
  24. Sinclair, John. 1999. Latin American Television: A Global View. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Smith, Laurel C. 2006. “Mobilizing Indigenous Video. The Mexican Case.” Journal of Latin American Geography 5 (1): 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Terada, Rei. 2001. Feeling in Theory: Emotion After the “Death of the Subject.” Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Williams, Gareth. 2011. The Mexican Exception: Sovereignty, Police, and Democracy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wortham, Erica Cusi. 2004. “Between the State and Indigenous Autonomy: Unpacking Video Indígena in Mexico.” American Anthropologist 106 (2): 363–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Vinicius Navarro and Juan Carlos Rodríguez 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Freya Schiwy

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations