@haircomestrouble, Vertov’s Kino-Eye: The Embattled Documentarists reminded me of your comment, particularly his characterization of conventional fictional film as, “cine-nicotine”. Vertov contended that his work, cine-object, functioned as a political and social tool to create worthwhile cine discussions. In contrast, the highly commercialized film work of his peers, while perhaps more engaging, served merely as fleeting amusement, lacking in substance. I think that Vertov would agree with your assertion that, “part of understanding and knowledge is the time it takes to develop it”. This is perhaps most evident in his statement, cine-object made with the materials of newsreel largely sobers him up, and gives him the impression of a disagreeable-tasting antidote to the poison” (81). That is to say, while it may not be as exciting to watch a lengthier, involved documentary as a quirky, succinct youtube video, we are selling ourselves short as viewers and as learners, shying away from important realities. Vertov warns that allowing ourselves to become caught up in the superfluous renders a “permanent state of over-excited unconsciousness” (83), reminiscent @revandrewwrights’s account of certain friends unable to watch the entirety of Blackfish.

Are we as a society too infatuated with the “cine-nicotine” or fluff media that Vertov and @haircomestrouble make reference to?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s