Political Filmmaking as Militant Inquiry

作为激进探究的政治电影制作

• 批准号: 2442980
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Goldsmiths University of London
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2020
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2020 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2442980
• 关键词: Political; Filmmaking; Militant; Inquiry

This research asks whether political filmmaking can be understood as 'militant inquiry'-my term for modes of collective activist-led research that join knowledge production with action for social transformation. Like other modes of activism, political film culture takes new forms in the digital age. Groups such as Plateforme d'Enquete Militantes use camera phones to document migrants' working conditions; online video platforms such as Labournet host free content produced internationally by or with campaigning groups. These examples demonstrate the versatile potential of audiovisual militant inquiry in a globalising world. But such technologies, being often geared towards atomised production and consumption, arguably fail to create collectivities among marginalised communities. My work explores this problem by analysing these contemporary projects in a comparative frame with two groups from the 1968 era, the 'golden age' of political film collectives (Grant 2016). I reread the work of the Feminist Cinema Collective (Italy) and Grupo Ukamau (Bolivia) as militant inquiry that refashioned film form and practice as a feminist and anti-colonial means for collectivity in communities marginalised by race, gender and imperialism. Through this lens, I bring such work to bear upon contemporary practices, exploring the possibilities for collective audiovisual inquiry today.Research background and questionsAdamson (2018) argues that digital, amateur modes of political filmmaking find their 'prehistory' in the film collectives of the 68 era-'the first cycle of international uprisings where [...] portable cinematic technologies [...] were widely available'. Such perspectives can be understood within a tradition of 'media archaeology' that excavates the radical experiments of the past to understand the contradictions of the present (Elsaesser 2016). But while Adamson and others (Hamblin 2019; Grant 2016) recognise the 68-era film collectives' attempts to build collectivity through aesthetic production, none have connected their readings with the many recent studies of activist research, workers' inquiry or militant investigation, practices that I group together as 'militant inquiry'.From 2014-16 I co-organised two militant inquiry projects in Delhi-one with university workers, one with steel workers-holding interviews, producing collaborative newspapers and running study groups. I brought this into my academic work via my MA dissertation, a pilot project for this PhD, examining political film collectives in relation to theories of militant inquiry. This gives me a thorough understanding of existing research on this subject, including gaps in the literature. In particular, historical accounts (e.g. Hoffman 2018) have tended to be male-centred and Eurocentric. I address this by centring the work of feminist and anti-colonial groups. I build upon the work of scholars (Figiel et al. 2014) whose analyses of inquiring practices produce new theoretical work on the subject, and I contribute to efforts (Hitchcock 2018) to explore what militant inquiry means for cultural theory. This will have impact beyond media and cultural studies, not only for the social sciences, but also outside the university, for radical media projects such as Labournet, and activist groups practising militant inquiry such as Notes From Below.To consider political filmmaking as militant inquiry, I ask:- how audiovisual media are used to communicate with different communities- how they can forge new collectivities- how they operate alongside/differently to other media.The above are the bases of my three research questions:- How is film language reworked in different geo-cultural and political situations to enable inquiry?- How can film practices develop militant inquiry for co-research?- How have non-audiovisual media historically been used for militant inquiry and how is film situated in relation to this?

这项研究提出了政治电影制作是否可以被理解为“激进探究”的问题——我的术语是指将知识生产与社会变革行动结合起来的集体活动家主导的研究模式。与其他形式的激进主义一样，政治电影文化在数字时代呈现出新的形式。 Plateforme d'Enquete Militantes 等团体使用拍照手机记录移民的工作条件； Labournet 等在线视频平台托管由竞选团体或与竞选团体合作制作的国际免费内容。这些例子展示了视听激进探究在全球化世界中的多功能潜力。但此类技术通常面向原子化生产和消费，可以说无法在边缘化社区之间建立集体。我的作品通过将这些当代项目与 1968 年政治电影集体的“黄金时代”的两个群体进行比较来探讨这个问题（Grant 2016）。我重读了女权主义电影集体（意大利）和 Grupo Ukamau（玻利维亚）的作品，将其视为激进的探究，将电影形式和实践重塑为女权主义和反殖民主义的集体手段，以促进因种族、性别和帝国主义而边缘化的社区的集体性。通过这个镜头，我将此类作品应用于当代实践，探索当今集体视听探究的可能性。研究背景和问题亚当森（2018）认为，政治电影制作的数字化、业余模式在电影集体中找到了它们的“史前史”。 68 时代——“便携式电影技术得到广泛应用的第一轮国际起义”。这些观点可以在“媒体考古学”的传统中得到理解，即挖掘过去的激进实验来理解现在的矛盾（Elsaesser 2016）。但是，尽管亚当森和其他人（Hamblin 2019；Grant 2016）认识到 68 时代的电影集体试图通过美学生产来建立集体，但没有人将他们的解读与最近的许多关于激进主义研究、工人询问或激进调查、实践的研究联系起来。我将其归为“激进调查”。从 2014-16 年起，我在德里共同组织了两个激进调查项目——一个与大学工人合作，一个与钢铁工人合作——持有采访、制作合作报纸和运行研究小组。我通过我的硕士论文将这一点带入我的学术工作中，这是该博士的一个试点项目，研究政治电影集体与激进探究理论的关系。这让我彻底了解了该主题的现有研究，包括文献中的空白。特别是，历史记录（例如 Hoffman 2018）往往以男性为中心和以欧洲为中心。我通过集中女权主义和反殖民团体的工作来解决这个问题。我以学者们的工作（Figiel et al. 2014）为基础，他们对探究实践的分析产生了关于该主题的新理论工作，并且我为探索激进探究对文化理论意味着什么做出了贡献（Hitchcock 2018）。这将产生超出媒体和文化研究的影响，不仅对社会科学，而且对大学之外的激进媒体项目（如Labournet）和实践激进探究（如Notes From Below）的活动团体也有影响。 将政治电影制作视为激进探究，我问：-视听媒体如何被用来与不同的社区进行交流-它们如何建立新的集体-它们如何与其他媒体一起/不同地运作。以上是我的三个研究问题的基础：-电影语言如何被重新设计在不同的地缘文化和政治状况以促进探究？-电影实践如何发展激进的探究以进行共同研究？-非视听媒体历史上如何被用于激进的探究以及电影与此的关系如何？