We
attended a lecture last night by Mark Lewis. The only memory we had of his work
was at the 2009 Venice Biennale, and it was a foggy one at that! The work in
question was a film where a group of individuals were in the stage before a fight
would begin; pushing and shoving each other while shouting and pointing at
others. However, this was the conditions of the film the entire way through
making them a part of the background. So, we remembered this being a relatively
interesting idea but being only 14 at the time we probably hadn’t (and if we
had we had since forgotten) the context and thinking that went along with this
idea, hence the desire to go to the talk. On a non-art related topic,
throughout the entire lecture he seemed like such a lovely and genuine person,
an example being when someone’s phone went off about 15 minutes in and instead
of glaring at them or just ignoring it he said ‘ah don’t worry it’s happened to
me before…I don’t like the ring though, could you maybe change the ring?’ Which
was met with a chuckle from the audience, diffusing the embarrassment from the
person whose phone ran and potentially allowing the audience an insight into
his personality. Returning to the main body of the talk, he began by discussing
the notion of eliminating typically ideas of cinema such as characters,
narrative, dialogue etc. and instead using the limitations of the physicality
of film (this was when he originally began making films in 35mm). Therefore,
the structure of these moving images is imposed by the mechanism itself, in
this sense he was/is very true to the material he’s employing. Time is a big
factor in this, his films would last as long as a 35mm reel of film and in
addition to this, regularly his films begin as zoomed in as the camera would
possibly go and finish and zoomed out. These editing decisions therefore are
taken out of the equation, he doesn’t have to think about them.
Another
consideration is regarding sound; all but one of the films he shared were
silent and he said that his answer to the question, ‘why silent?’, is ‘why
sound?’. Sound has no automatic tie with film just like it has nothing to do
with a painting or a sculpture. It should be an added extra in the same fashion
that if the barista at Starbucks asks if you want chocolate sprinkles on your
Venti, sugar-free, non-fat, vanilla soy, double shot decaf, no foam, extra hot,
Peppermint White Chocolate Mocha with light whip and extra syrup you consider
whether it’s appropriate as opposed to just saying yes because it’s there. The
lack of sound also allows you to look and look without distraction. He spoke at
great length about the concept of imagery and making pictures so the lack of
sound makes perfect sense. It also comes back to a comment about art
establishments; museums are not designed to contain thing that emit sound, so
removing the sound is making it an ‘art form’ in their eyes. Finally, he
discussed how, in his opinion, it actually has to be a really good film if it’s
a silent one because there’s no sound to save you or to carry a potentially
weak element. An obvious, but still relevant reference point is John Cage’s
work 4'33, more specifically about removing aspects of something in order to
really be able to pay attention to it.
One
of our favourite films he showed was called ‘The Pitch’, which is all about the
idea of extras and how they’re what makes a film real. If one was to make an
entire film with no extras it would feel strange and alien. Now, this would not
necessarily be a bad thing but if the film is intended to be relatable to the
lives we all live then extras are essential. However, on the other side, if one
was to remove the main characters from a film it would just be life as most of
us experience it on a day to day basis. To contextualise this he told the short
story ‘On Exactitude in Science’ by Jorge Luis Borges; in the story, it becomes
essential to create a map as big and as detailed as the world itself. Yet due
to its impracticality it couldn’t be used so instead they went back to just
using the world instead. So, in making this comparison what we think he was
saying was that truly depicting everyday life is more interesting than a life
size version of it.
To
return to his obsession with film as a material, he spoke about it as being
something which has equal time in production and consumption. In this sense has
a life span, which in turn makes film inherently about death or at least
mortality. This is applicable when observing that all his films are (or appear
to be) one continuous shot. This is another attempt to reduce the cinematic
tropes within his works; cuts create a narrative. It also doesn’t allow a
viewer any time to breathe, to recap what’s been happening in the previous
section. This links in with his desire for the camera to appear magical yet he
doesn’t want the special effects too…‘special effects’. We’ve all seen the
crazy stuff they can do in Harry Potter and Star Wars (and it looks amazing)
and we believe it that its happening in front of us. But Mark Lewis wants you
to want to believe it, like you would with a magic trick, even though in your
heart you know it’s not possible.
Finally,
a beautiful response to the question ‘Why do you take film the things that you do?’
was ‘because I want to see what they would look like as films’. A line which he
credited to the 20th Century street photographer Garry Winogrand, who said the
same thing but with ‘films’ being replaced by ‘photographs’. A genuinely
exciting talk, with thorough works steeped with intelligent consideration.
