I had one of these moments this morning, flicking through some news stories. I read of how my football team got stomped all over by Liverpool. It almost felt, if not good then at least right, coming after last season’s wonderfully bizarre championship winning efforts. I also read of Edward Snowden’s recent criticisms of Russia, which seemed like a pretty ballsy thing to do given that they stand between him and a very uncertain fate back in his home country. But it wasn’t the story that was odd. It was the fact that the story was illustrated by a movie still from the new Oliver Stone directed Edward Snowden based movie. What to make of this? The wrong image put to the wrong story? A movie of an event can be used to illustrate a real event? A movie version of events and a real version of events are interchangeable? Who’s to say.
I watched a short documentary about The French New Wave last week which argued that the filmmakers were not looking for a new cinematic language for movie making, rather they were looking for ways to use the language in different ways. For example, they would move a camera where editing was normally expected, and vice versa. I want to do similar things with my camera. I want to bring to bear the technicalities of the camera to photographing my screen, in the hope that the images produced can speak of our messy times. So here’s Eddy and his gang solving another mystery for the Justice League. And here’s a fictitious President passing comment on the tax affairs of the former Prime Minister of the UK. And here’s the actor who played a fictitious president commenting on the fact that his character is an influence on the current Republican presidential nominee.