...what if, instead of shooting, taking, cutting; instead of a filmmaking approach suffused with military strategic lexicon; I was to let occasion and attention to have the reins. Now, the camera is an idle eye, not particularly interested, -maybe because it is more preoccupied with an idea that it is dancing with- It is surveying, or just speedily traveling from one side to the other. Suddenly, it gets hooked: something is tugging at it. It is hooked; compelled to stay on the 'particularly not interesting'. Once past the threshold of boredom, (that threshold is, oftentimes, surprisingly low) the question becomes: ‘What are you asking of me?’ What do you want me to see?’ There is the seen. A scene. ((Right here, consider this: In games, roles are not constant. The captive can become captor. In games, rules change on mutual accord. )) It is the camera that gets ‘caught'; as in a game of tag. The strategizing eye is captured. The roles shift, the eye is captivated by its captive.
The serious endeavor of hunting the image and pinning down an idea with the tactical, well-planned shots, takes and cuts is one thing. An entire branch of cinema and image business proves that it is successful, effective and many times certainly beautiful. True, that is there. There is also the case of the haunting image, being haunted by an image and attempts of its reconstruction opens, unfolds into sequences. That condensed single image can lend itself to the cinematic experience, Bergman stands as its epitome.
I suggest a failure, a flop even. Let’s establish the fact that I enter the scene with the least promise of success. Could I, with the nonchalant eye (which requires a certain discipline, for it involves a re-training of the act of looking) not look, not suggest, not direct but be subjected, taken over by the demand of being seen.
It is and is not a game of dice. Taking a chance is always dangerous, 'le hasard' is hazardous.