Talk:Circles (film distributor)

Statement
Removed from article Gordo (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In 1979, they issued a statement:

“This is our statement: ‘the gesture of withholding our work and the presentation in its stead of a statement of opposition is the only form of intervention open to us. It was impossible to allow the Arts Council to present our work as if there had been no struggle, as if it had been nurtured in the spirit of public patronage.

Informed by a feminist perspective it was our intention to begin a re-examination of the historicized past by introducing (welcoming) Alice guy and re- presenting Germaine Dulac and Maya Deren. Maya Deren and Germaine Dulac are both included in the "film as film" historical survey but seen only in relation to the articulation of abstract/formal film. We were concerned that these women would be inaccurately 'defined' by the concepts that they have been chosen to illustrate and we felt a necessity to re-locate their work within the context of their own concerns, giving it a complexity and fullness that the "film as film" exhibition denied by excluding: Dulac's contribution to the feminist movement; her interviews with women artists expressing their struggle for recognition; her belief in specifically feminine creativity; her political involvement in the unionisation of film workers and support for the popular front before World War II; Deren's (embarrassing) involvement with voodoo; the relationship between her writing and her films; her interest in science, anthropology and religion; her attack on Surrealism.

Alice GUY is not represented in "film as film" and has been scarcely recognised anywhere. She was actively involved in filmmaking at the turn-of-the-century, experimenting with narrative structures and the use of sound with film, but has been forgotten by historians. Why are her films forgotten while those of Lumiere and Melies used as standard texts?

We hoped to carry the historical research up to the present and open up the closed form of "film as film" by creating an active space within the exhibition where contemporary women could show personal statements and histories, find their own continuity and share ideas for future shows.

In general: we object to the idea of closed art exhibition which presents its subjects anonymously, defining its truth in Letraset and four foot display panels, denying the space within it to answer back, to add or disagree, denying the ideological implications inherent in the pursuit of an academic dream, the uncomplicated pattern where everything fits.

Specifically: we object to being invited, presumably on the strength of our skills and past work, to participate in the organisation and definition of an exhibition, yet not being left free to characterise our own contributions. We reject the subtle insinuations of intellectual wooliness and inefficiency, as if our perspectives were tolerated rather than considered seriously.

Months ago we made "requests" for more representation by women on the committees, for recognition of our ideas for the exhibition, for space within the gallery and for the freedom to exhibit our work, to determine what it would include and how it would look. These requests could have become demands. We might have "won" by subversive personal methods or by insisting on a democratic vote. But how does one demand collectivity, support and a real working relationship which includes discussion of ideas and ideological positions, within the framework of meetings structured by an hierarchical institution?

We made a decision not to carry on, not to continue working in a situation that was hostile and ultimately fruitless for the individual women involved. It is better that the historical research be published elsewhere and the work of contemporary women filmmakers, artists and critics be presented in a context where they are valued.’