Between Head and Hands

Van der Keuken elegantly distinguished writing and filmmaking from each other. The two activities do not impose strict prescriptions on each other; rather, they run parallel in his work. They are similar searches but with different means. Early in his career, writing was a way to anticipate his films, to explore ideas that may not yet have fully manifested themselves in his work. “I suspected film for some time to be a thing in which time and space have fused and solidified, before I could really make that thing. In the meantime, I needed words to make the connection between my head and my hands.”

The notions of the language of film and the laws of cinema are used by many as a reason to find bad films good and good films bad. Fortunately, there exist neither laws of cinema nor a language of film: everything is allowed.

Fragmentation, in the present-day montage conception, is not an automatic result of a fragmentation built into the mechanics of the film. It solely corresponds to the searching movements in our consciousness, to the shifting back and forth between the various layers of reality. Just as the corners, holes, convex and concave surfaces in a given space can be explored, the time fragments in the film correspond to the convex and concave surfaces in our time experience as it is shaped by various states of mind.

If you operate on that wavelength, you create prototypes of reality. This can be done in very simple everyday images. I would rather not have power over specialized technical machinery. Film is more a way to put things into a context than to create a story. An innovation of the eye.

As a filmmaker, I thus inhabit the world of the image, a world halfway between myself and reality. I believe that, ideally speaking, the film viewer is in a comparable position. For a variety of reasons, we have abandoned the idea of reality as a self-contained entity existing outside and independently of us. So if you don't wish to take the position of someone watching an external reality from the outside, but rather of someone who is observer and participant at the same time, then you’re facing the problem of how to define yourself as an individual, or how, as an observer, you are to see yourself. Who is the person who makes, and who is the person who sees?

The more progress you make as a filmmaker, the more you view your work as a force, be it perhaps a modest one, in the social struggle. One of the repercussions is then that the free, autonomous image often must be subordinated to the image as the bearer of meanings. I have the feeling that, in covering precisely this ground, the art of montage has enriched its possibilities. First it dissociated itself from meaning and concept and became collage. By way of an acknowledgement of the limitations that our society (and perhaps every society) imposes upon us, it returned to the formulation of concepts. But in the process, it became a kind of montage that also incorporates the collage and exhibits a constant interchange between freedom and collective necessity. Dialectics that are left wing in their consequences but that “preserve the level of surprise.”

I want to try to describe a piece of editing work with as much precision as I can. It is Monday, the sixth of February, a quarter past 11. The place where we set up shop last November is a partially darkened room in a shed on the grounds of the Cinetone Studios in the east of Amsterdam. The interior is a bright but indefinable shade of green, the exterior visible from the window has the picturesque gloominess of a set where, decades ago, the last Eastern was shot. At the editing table, Jan Dop, the montage/editing/cutting artist, perched on the edge of his swivel chair cranked up so high he is almost standing, brings to mind a cowboy ready for the roundup.

Through years of playing diligently with the visible and audible material that presents itself within the four sides of the image, the making of images became my profession. But what should you film all day long? In order to point my camera at other people I have to conquer certain disgust, because the image paralyzes life – limitation and falsification set in immediately. Professionalism is the conquering of that disgust: to wrestle some life from it in spite of that, to get closer to people, to bridge the distance. When I write, I hardly hit upon the problem of disgust. Writing is not my profession; it is an activity to link other activities.

Every time an image emerges from the depths, something changes: in size, intensity or movement, or in the relationship it establishes with other images – from other layers. In the course of these changes, the argument, the train of thought, the story of the film develops.

Today the purely visual – or rather the purely sensory image and sound – is still the nucleus it all revolves around. The first convolution around that nucleus is the montage, the process of splitting up sensations and combining them again to create an object in time, an optical statement. 

How to return, how to leave behind. The cinematic space of New York, the Lower East Side, “Loisaida” as its Spanish-speaking residents so aptly call it and also write it: cracked pavement, the rot of bad teeth, manhole covers, the scars of flames, scorched spot in the city – now left behind, everything forgotten, senile like in Bernlef’s Mind Shadows. Suddenly you no longer know a single name, a single place, a single number; you have gone blind from too much seeing.

It is therefore the specificity of the means that determines the paths to be taken, towards partially unknown goals, and in a progressive articulation of the film. Style is not a homogeneous characteristic. It’s a set of wanderings, perhaps tics, through which the author’s person is barely holding together. The last moment of unity before the collapse, the last moment of a “vision of the world”, as we used to say: the search for this last moment begins over and over again.