8.06 Analysis of the main themes of the logbooks
The first job is to search
for categories and patterns. I read through the 360 pages of notes in the three
A4 logbooks. Each topic or theme that emerged was noted and the relevant page
number recorded under that heading. Of course these are bound to be mainly
themes that I imposed from the last three years of study but I am also aware
that new patterns may emerge from this sort of data collection. Thirteen of
these headings which I had noted did not get further entries. Eight of them had
8 - 30 pages entered as having relevant material. Some of these headings like
'contexts' were too broad and needed further sub-division. On the other hand,
some of the unique categories could be moved together under a more general
heading. In the end it was themes that were key to Exploding Cinema and that
had not been covered by other aspects of the research, which I chose to write
up and present here.
I have focused on three key
themes: open access, the practicalities of financial independence, and identity
formation. Other logbook material gets used in the narrative history chapter.
In fact data generated by being a participant observer inevitably infuses the
whole research thinking and writing.
a) Open Access - Ethos and Reality
Open access for filmmakers
does not seem to lead to an influx of pornography, racism or other abusive
materials that could cause offence in an open setting.
The North American
underground broke taboos and relied on forbidden fruit for much of its appeal.[1]
The Kino Kulture venue in London has tended to specialise in showing such
'transgressive' material.[2]
This sort of material is not ideally suited to an open mixed show and it rarely
appears on the Exploding Cinema screen. There is no explicit policy or
guidelines on what is not acceptable; filmmakers just do not seem to offer
material they themselves seem to perceive as unsuitable.[3]
This principle also applies to material that is not
extreme in any sense. Much Video Art, especially that of a durational nature,
which is increasingly popular in the contemporary gallery scene is unsuitable
for a seated evening audience and does not often get sent in.
This is my experience of
doing the programming for the second roof show in Peckham (15-08-98), derived
from logbook notes:
'I phoned people on the
database and hauled in a few oldies filmmakers who had show at Exploding Cinema
in the past). Then things came at me from Colette who is the main number for
information on the flyers.'[4]
The point is who can respond
to open access? The films shown seem to be made by: Collective members; their
friends; people who show regularly; people who get in touch through our web
presence; students;[5] established
film-makers in other fields who've made something that isn't destined for the
mainstream.[6]
By this account the reality of open access programming relies on the organic
contacts that surround the programmer, the collective and the event itself as
an ongoing institution - in that order.[7]
I suppose the policy of no
selection might not be viable with a well-funded festival in a prestige venue
that widely advertised 'no selection'. It might then get flooded with material.
No-selection with Exploding Cinema is in the context of a localised network
with the natural quantitative limits of human friendship. You can only maintain
significant relationships with a limited number of people. But there are other
forms of inertia that can limit the number of people wanting to show work. A
passage from my logbook:
'A woman friend of Ian's..
who works on TV, had got pissed off with the lack of inventiveness on TV and
had got together with friends and made her own programme. I suggested she
should show it at Exploding but she said 'it wasn't our style'. I suggested we
didn't have a style because we show whatever is given to us. She persisted that
her group were into 'high production values'. I just repeated that didn't
exclude her. But it seems that for her Exploding Cinema presented a context of
retro, low production values as an aesthetic - which can help maintain
the divide that it critiques.'[8]
It should be emphasised here
that works with the highest production values have often been shown and have
seemed to co-exist happily with rough-cut home produced material.[9]
A selection of sorts is made
for tours, which fall outside of the main format. Although I was told that
anyone who phoned up wanting to show a film in the period before a tour would
be included[10] on the
basis of the slogan 'Selection but no rejection'.[11]
The programmes of the
smaller gigs are selected by whoever is organising them or whoever takes the
initiative. This is an account of a less organised small event at the Anarchist
Bookfair, October 1999:
'One of the collective had
said we didn't need to make a programme (of films to show) but then just set up
and showed his own programme of videos from 2.30 until 5.00pm. This was
disconcerting as Damon, Stuart Pound and myself had brought along videos but
didn't have a say.'[12]
It is not easy to influence
the collective to do things which are not already within its normative
practices. Opposition is often not vocalised and is felt only in the form of a
mute resistance, often only expressed as pronounced lack of enthusiasm.[13]
The normative style of Exploding Cinema decor has a brash retro pop/ camp style
based on collections of slides made by the core collective. The style of decor
does provide an upbeat atmosphere for a variety show and it would take quite a
lot of energy to introduce something different.[14]
I would almost feel that the identity of Exploding Cinema was being challenged.
Perhaps it is not suprising that an inertia surrounds the specifics of the
'dˇcor' once it has been established as the house style.
When a new person joins they
tacitly accept a set of ongoing practices some of which are highly specific
although their fixity is invisible to those that have been engaged with them
for years. In practice it is the core group that tend to maintain the house
style. Do they in this way exert a kind of covert semiotic ownership?
'The inner group is embedded
in a wider friendship network which comes to shows and embraces the core group
but not the newer members who can never attain the (sub)cultural capital of the
founding members.'[15]
'Exploding Cinema is open to
all as long as you are determined, tough, energetic and not looking for a group
that cares about you. You've got to be self-contained, able to take put-downs
or people throwing wobblies, and the usual underground collective shit.'[16]
This is not a criticism of
the core collective who in fact demonstrate enormous generosity, putting much
voluntary work in whilst they were subsisting on the lowest of incomes. My
point is just to compare the reality of the collective practice with the ideals
of open access and peerness.
There
are also advantages to be got by newcomers from this existing network as well
as from the wider position that Exploding Cinema's reputation has built up
in the USA and Germany. New members are quite welcome to use this network
to their own advantage, although few seem to.
[17]
It should also be remembered that Exploding Cinema did
nurture the groups who came together as the Volcano Festival from 1996.
[1] I watched a video called 'TV Ministry' by Mark Hejnar,
which contained mimic mutilation amongst other 'extreme' imagery at Kino
Kulture (18-4-98). See L1 p67/8. Kino Kulture was at 'The Horse Hospital', a
venue behind Russell Square underground. At this time it was run by Ian White.
[2] For this aspect of the underground see Jack Sargeant's
Death Tripping: the cinema of transgression (Creation Books 1995)
[3] See also L2 p204
[4] See L2 p153
[5] Who are sometimes taught by Exploders. E.g. Paul
Tarrago taught the Strand Super 8 course during this period.
[6] E.g. Marks Saunders' home movie 'Swell' (VHS 10 mins)
shown in Roof Show 2.
[7] 'We showed a film that two people had just turned up
with - I wonder if we even got their details?' L2 p153. Such spontaneity was
rare during the period of my study.
[8] L2 p167. This observation was noted at the Oval House
(26-09-98) as part of the Volcano programme.
[9] Finally I wrote a text on the policy of no selection
in the rant style of polemic favoured by group for the programme. See IP 4-6-99
& L3 p297. A follow up to this text was published the following year. See
IP 4-8-2000.
[10] L3 p354
[11] The policy of inclusion is limited to the shows. See
also L3 pp330 & 332
[12] L3 p340
[13] L1 p71
[14] L1 p79
[15] L1 p86
[16] L2 p177. At other times I felt more positive! See L3
p308 for a text I wrote which was published in the programme of 4-8-2000 p13
entitled 'Why Open Collective?'.
[17] See L1 p118 re network advantages. Reporting a meeting
on 18th July 1998, Exploding collective can get put on the guest
list of other film groups events. E.g. Colette and Duncan were on the 'Kentra'
guest list. This is an upmarket event organised by Phillip Illson of Halloween
Society that costs £9 for a ticket.