Cinema as a magnifying glass

It’s good to return to the cinema, in a specially designated room and without a mask, in a chair in front of you, nothing interferes. For all the same, these images that occupy the entire wall where nothing else is visible, this screen that allows you to accommodate landscapes, crowds, cities, this sound that covers everything and seems almost material, is still better than the small screen at home, in an all-too-familiar environment, viewing images whose limited number of pixels leaves room only for framed, tense faces, talking, talking tirelessly to the point of dizziness, to the point of nausea.

As you can see, I am happy to return to the cinema, which, leaving the house, allows you to finally get out of yourself and immerse yourself in the rich beauty of fiction without the need for endless dialogues and endless turns. finish. Cinema is a consistent fiction, unlike the TV series, which is its soft form, flowing and stretching like threads of melted cheese, that fundamentally tasteless material. All of this is to say that stories whose very image is shocking – and that everything is done in less than two hours – are enjoyable. I believe more in the novel than in the TV series, in the language of literature; it must be age or the obsessions of the profession I’m in.

So I go back to the movies, go through the complicated multiplex programs in my small town, ten theaters and fifteen films at a time, but several random screenings during the week, you have to be on the lookout, not to miss the one we are aiming for, in these cases we pay attention, we plan, real work. And so, following the news, I’m amazed at the number of films where work is the subject. Work and its heaviness, its tension, its violence, even its cruel treatment, obvious and desirable or deaf and systemic. Because it’s not a tender, it’s a job. I remember the director of a major media outlet exclaiming during a panel discussion: “But I’ve had enough of people constantly talking about misery at work! This is something else, work is personal development! » Yes, it’s possible, but it depends on the work you’re doing, and some of it is inherently repulsive.

→ CRITICAL. Cinema: “Full Time”, Subway, Work, Sleep, Solo

When characterPermanently maid in a fashionable hotel, or when I do not care working as a flight attendant for a budget airline, the job is unlikely to be completed despite the luxury and festive decorum in which their tasks are performed. And when in Permanently a grain of sand comes, then a RATP strike, we see that labor contracts are fundamentally unequal: it is the worker who bears all the pressure, and they manage it, until they burn out, if necessary. As for the service and representation professions, such as the stewardess in the tourism industry, who therefore also does housework and has to sell various products in accordance with ever-increasing goals, they do not require from their staff any rudeness, any affection, impassibility of a robot. in relation to employees. who, nevertheless, are people, and here, too, this self-repression is the duty of the worker. And the cinema, precisely by its conciseness and the power of its means, makes you feel that an anguish of a social thriller in one, an anguish of human formatting in another. We don’t explain, we powerfully show and hear, and the political purpose of these films comes from empathy and intuition, not through strict dialogue. It’s amazing, it’s the role of cinema.

→ CRITICAL. “To hell”, between earth and sky

From this story, we understand that this notion of free association by contract, on which the liberal concept of labor is based, is a bait that denies the real balance of power and rejects laws as obstacles to the free play of the market, and therefore wants to leave free rein to the balance of power, without even negotiating. What I have just confirmed, we can discuss, it will be a political debate; but if this appears at the basis of much fiction, it is because these political debates do not take place in reality. The current elections show us that we are not talking about work in her organization, we believe that it is not a subject, we believe that it is not about the political order, but about economic pragmatism. The work becomes politically invisible, so it reappears in fiction for its impact on people, and we see all of its violence never seriously discussed.

Leave a Comment