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?

本研究问政治电影制作是否可以被理解为“激进的调查”-我的术语为集体活动家领导的研究模式，加入知识生产与社会变革的行动。与其他行动主义模式一样，政治电影文化在数字时代也有了新的形式。Plateforme d 'Enquete Militarian等团体使用照相手机记录移民的工作条件; Labournet等在线视频平台提供由国际活动团体或与国际活动团体合作制作的免费内容。这些例子表明，在全球化的世界中，视听军事调查具有多方面的潜力。但这些技术往往面向原子化的生产和消费，可以说未能在边缘化社区中创造集体性。我的作品通过分析这些当代项目来探索这个问题，这些项目与1968年时代的两个群体进行比较，这是政治电影集体的“黄金时代”（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，作为激进的调查，将电影形式和实践重新塑造为女权主义和反殖民主义的手段，在被种族，性别和帝国主义边缘化的社区中实现集体主义。通过这个透镜，我将这样的作品带到当代实践中，探索今天集体视听探究的可能性。研究背景和问题亚当森（2018）认为，数字化的业余政治电影制作模式在68年代的电影集体中找到了它们的“史前史”-“第一轮国际起义，[.]便携式电影技术[…]广泛使用”。这种观点可以在“媒体考古学”的传统中理解，这种传统挖掘过去的激进实验，以理解现在的矛盾（Elsaesser 2016）。但是当亚当森和其他人（Hamblin 2019;格兰特2016）承认68时代的电影集体试图通过美学生产建立集体，没有人把他们的阅读与最近的许多活动家研究，工人调查或激进调查的研究，从2014年到2016年，我在德里共同组织了两个激进的调查项目，一个是大学工作人员，一个是钢铁工人，进行采访，制作合作报纸和经营学习小组。我通过我的硕士论文将这一点带入了我的学术工作，这是这个博士学位的一个试点项目，研究政治电影集体与激进调查理论的关系。这使我对这个问题的现有研究有了全面的了解，包括文献中的空白。特别是，历史记录（例如霍夫曼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者和反殖民团体的工作来解决这个问题。我建立在学者的工作（Figiel et al. 2014），他们对探究实践的分析产生了关于这一主题的新理论工作，我有助于努力（希区柯克2018）探索激进的探究对文化理论意味着什么。这将对媒体和文化研究产生深远的影响，不仅对社会科学，而且对大学之外的激进媒体项目，如Labournet，以及从事激进调查的激进组织，如Notes From Below。为了将政治电影制作视为激进调查，我问：-视听媒体如何被用来与不同的社区沟通-它们如何形成新的集体-它们如何与其他媒体一起/不同地运作。以上是我三个研究问题的基础：- 电影语言如何在不同的地理文化和政治情况下重新加工，以实现探究？电影实践如何发展共同研究的战斗性调查？历史上非视听媒体是如何被用于激进调查的？电影与此有何关系？