"Theatre is not a mirror but a magnifying glass." Mayakovsky He lost it, this Anatoly. Virtual Film? Not clear what does it mean, but okay. And this "resurrection" business? It is too much. What resurrection? What is he talking about? And what the music for? Everything about Virtual Theatre (VT) goes into vtheatre directory! * video clips (new) Virtual Theatre Main webmaster NEWz Spring'99: Film & Drama Film Festival Fall'99: Visions of the Northern Mind Links Family Web Search The Internet Movie Database Enter part of a movie or TV quote and click "Go" to search the quotes at imdb.com.   Lists for Virtual Theatre projects: 3 Sisters -- Method Acting, Cast VTheatre -- tech, film crew and high tech team. [an error occurred while processing this directive] Summary (c)2004: Questions goto : tarkovsky.wetpaint.com wiki ^ The Shrew Film Directing "showcase" ^ Notes Updates? 2006 Film w/Anatoly I & II: Directing + Theory & playwright space: chekhov.us * flickr.com/groups/film-art film-philosophy.com 2007 -- filmmaking pages (new) "Единственный зритель, которого должен представлять себе автор, это идеальный зритель, то есть он сам. Все остальное имеет отношение к театральной кассе, а не к драматическому искусству." Nabokov [ The only spectator, any author should invision, is an ideal spectator, i.e. himself. The rest has relation to box office, not to dramatic art. ( i ) AA ] 007 web-video ... 2010 :

theatre theory

blog: anatoly-film

Y2K Film-North & Beyond

Virtual (Film) Idea

"Virtual=Film"

My notes (POV, Self, Tech) are not telling the whole story. Resurrect pages should do it. What was know as "film medium" is nothing less than method of resurrection!

It's still lack the full virtuality (3D) and technology had to wait for the total digital revolution. Now images become eternal; as long as we can "remember" the data. The old phenomene of idenitification puts a "viewer" in the middle of action; he always is the center (like in a dream). Our special effects madness is the attempt to develop the means to place him within the film chronotope as his reality. It's coming.

Old Business

Film Aesthetics should be renamed -- Film-Theatre (see Pata-Theatre), because at the end the spectator must become an actual participant of the action. He is more an "actor" -- he is a hero. The science fiction already used this scenario, but this near future is treated as "abnormal"... when it's not more un-natural experience that driving your car.

Paul Virilio pointed that we crossed the boundaries of our "human" exsistence and placed ourselves in the world beoynd our sensitivity. "Cut" is a break of the real (accident, according to Virilio, or miracle as it would be called before). FILM is VIRTUALITY.

In film classes I continue to refer to film language, when in fact this is new existence. The old men of the Exitential Idea didn't watch enough movies. With strong minds they would notice that film is the creation of the New from Nothing.

They saw this process intellectually or spiritually, I see it as ACTUALITY.

"Resurrected World" is a better world, the improved one. Do you see the light on Lilian Gish? Not only we "dramatize" life (adding meaning and MORE life), we replace it (Buadrillard's simulacra). What do we know about the original? What is this "original"? (Postmodern question).

Wrong Theory, Bad Subjects

Besides two pages on basic semiotics, which I made for my film classes, I had no film theory pages. The new Film600 directory is to be developed for this purpose. Why "Wrong Theory, Bad Subjects"?

What if "film" is not just language(s) and forms of communication, but the forms of new existence? What if we take a look at film from physical perspective of the (angelic) virtual world? From the physiological level? You see, why I better call it "Wrong Theory, Bad Subjects"...

We should review both path of the technological evolution of film: advances in recording the first reality (photographic nature) and the means of narrations (mimesis of the thought-feeling process). Should we take creation of simulacra literaly? How this man-made reality is organized and functions?

I do not know how far I will get with this, after all it's a side project, born out of the ideas of Virtual Theatre files. If you look at the texts in the vTheatre directory, you can notice that the structure of VT (Virtual Theatre) is surprising simular to The Book of Spectator. I have my own explaination: this new angelic reality is organized around one spectator, a single individual. I call it "Theatre of One"...

Consider it as an extension of me, the visualization of my inner world, projection of the invisible into new personal universe. We will be able to SEE each other thoughts and feelings, everyone will become transparent, "readable"...

This process on many pages I refer as Resurrection... Bad subject. What can I do? In Theology of Technology I write about the actual meaning of our technological stive. In short, we work on creation of God...

You see, I have to use the pauses... Every new statement gets me more in trouble, away from the proper academic writing.

God-Building

In 1900-1920s there was a group of Russian Communists, which called themselves "God-Builders" -- they saw communism metaphysically -- and practically, as Marxists must see everything philosophical. Of course, Stalin ended this fantastic dreaming; "God"? He did read Berdyaev's book about religious foundations of Marxism, Stalin didn't read much. According to Berdyaev, the energy of the Russian Revolution were no less than most resent forms of evolution of Christianity; full and practical applications of the old ideas. But unlike previous generations of Christian thinkers, Marxists came to change world, not to explain it (Marx). Russian Orthodoxy is full is misticism, Easter is a bigger holiday in Russia than Christmas, the idea of Resurrection is more atractive to their minds than the death on the cross. Russian Communists were more successful than their European comrades because were more fanatical (count the numbers of killed), the path they showed all other communist parties after them. The Trotsky' story has serious background: as a true Marxist he saw this Proletarian Revolution as universal, and only as a total global change. Maybe not as the God-Builders (Bogdanov), who saw the changes even more radical -- as complete transfiguration of the reality...

Meyerhold's (and his pupil's Eisenstein) formal discoveries are the by-product of this strange theological zeal, The 20s were the decade of the strive for creation of the new world and new man. The communists never forgot the rhytorics, but they didn't believe in it anymore by the time I was studying Marxism in school. The New Man (very much like Nietzsche) has to have different sensitivity, different perception and etc. The two-folded task (creation of the new world and new human being) is a silent heritage of the early radical communists, the God-Builders. The technology was missing. Not anymore. We have it, both -- the hardware and the software (ideas)...

Anatoly, are you saying that the West is working on the same communist dream? Friends, you should read Father-Russia and PostAmeriKa; there is in "film" that just "film"...

20th Century: The End of the The Son's Age

In Christian chronology the second millennium was the Age of the Son, the third -- The Age of The Holy Ghost. We all know that the past century was the most radical in history by any means. I write it in the Summer of 2003 and the 21st century already established new agenda -- this is global history, do we like it or not. History as we know it ended. The postmodernists, the sons of the european marxists, understood that it's too later to debate "The Sunset of the West" -- too late, we crossed the line. Film technologies are no less radical than electronic revolution or nuclear energy. In fact, they all are the parts of the big picture, elements of this process of transition to the new reality. But what about the New Man? Here were our bad subject (film) comes into pucture -- yes, it will take several generations before the mentality and sensuality will be changed, but film is a perfect tool to make NEW humans...

Look at the short (100 years) history of film: in all textbooks this history is broken into decades -- every ten years we have a new wave of forms! What a speed of evolution! What a rush! The medium which didn't exist a century ago has a bigger bibliography than musicology! We invest so much into it -- of course, we say -- entertainment, movies, fun... We better not to know what really takes place, like children, who are not aware that they learn to walk and speak (to insure the speed of learning)...

I do not know if this page is a right place to discuss the topic. Last note: "virtual film" is the next step. I will finish later...

[ image ]

Bookmark FILM-NORTH

2005-2006 Theatre UAF Season: Four Farces + One Funeral & Godot'06
Copyright © 2007 by filmplus.org. Permission to link to this site is granted.
my books.google.com + scholar.google.com * eCitations *
www.everything2.com search!

FILM amazon