04-27-2022, 07:23 PM
(04-27-2022, 01:57 PM)Chatwoman Wrote: If eras of time are just 'vibes' influenced by unseen forces, energies, and alignments of the gears/wheels of the matrix machine, then perhaps reenactment is indeed a process of refinement.
What an incredible idea -- a process of refinement.
In your specific case of taking your idea of the 70's (which was largely informed by your elders sharing their ideas of what their own experience yielded, and fictional or documentary-based media such as movies and television), and then implementing your own subsequent vision, which was, from your then-current vantage, buoyed by decades of novelty expansion both in society at large and within your subjective context (on a largely tangential note, I'd like to say I believe that the terms "subjective" and "objective" are going to be done away with as we grow in our understanding of consciousness, novelty and time), you created a new kind of vibe, which then has gone on to inspire the people you've attracted, such as myself. If someone came along and wanted to make a film of your life, they would be interpreting your interpretation of the 70's, adding yet another layer of novelty, and then producing further novelty from that yield. My question is, can re-enactment, both in the context of the OP and in media, really be a source of refinement, with novelty rising exponentially between efforts?
I'm interested, now, in the differences between re-enactment and documentary filmmaking, in terms of considering refinement. Which can get closer to source?
We refer to documentaries as "nonfiction", but when you consider the process of creating a narrative -- not REcreating, but simply creating ("narrative" is imposed on "reality", both in quotes because, in the spirit of your observation, where does one begin and the other end?) -- which is vital to documentary filmmaking -- and when you consider the process of editing footage, and the process of paid actors "re-enacting", "dramatically", "reality", so that we can have a visual of something that wasn't caught on camera, the term "nonfiction" becomes more and more problematic. I think re-enactment has a far greater capacity to recreate a lower-level novel event into the increasingly higher novel moments that comprise our "present", then does the documentary effort, as pure re-enactment doesn't require narrative, but only a pure stream of data, such as "these were the uniforms; these were the weapons; this was the field where it took place; this was the body count". Narrative might be imposed by omission, also known as interpretation, if we don't know how the body count was arrived at exactly -- who did the shooting, who caught the bullet, from what angle was the gun fired, in what position on the field was the combatant who died, so forth.
The only way film can get closer to an original event than re-enactment is with raw footage, assuming zero imposed narrative and zero editing -- or any other action which would change the footage into something other than what it was in its original form. Right? I'm tempted to say "obviously, yes, it is the single closest source to 'what happened'". But what if the lighting and camera angle of source footage isn't an adequate representation of what it actually was to the human eye? Then you could have people come in and restore the footage in a way that more clearly represents what happened, but that would be a massive introduction of novelty passing between the moment that was 'captured on film', and the process of restoration, which yields a more clear but less close view of what happened. It might be the clearest representation of what happened, but if it was restored yesterday, it would be the least close. That this is not a contradiction is kind of crazy. I think a great example of this is Peter Jackson's restoration of The Beatles "Get Back" footage. The software used literally did not exist prior to the restoration.
My subsequent thought is that re-enactment cannot ever truly refine at large, as each iteration is born out of greater amounts of novelty, and then yields ever more so, but it can refine on the microcosmic, in terms of getting more and more clear with the terminology used to refer.
