Throughout the film I am employing documentary images, there’s nothing really ‘staged’ or acted out for the camera. There is, however, a plethora of moments of re-enactment in the sense of re-framing, re-thinking and attempting to re-scribe. Such performative aspects, in consequence, are linked to the physical act of repeatedly returning to specific places.
Interested in the document but not in the immediate, non-arbitrary causality of events, it was not my intention to place things in a consistent, ordered state, either historically or geographically. The historical specificities of places and events can be conveyed, I believe, not in degrees of the images’ ‘truthfulness’, nor in a chronologically faithful narration, but instead in a refracted approach towards the framing of missing parts. Disclosing the grades of ‘darkness’ that the filmmaker passes through can become a tool to apprehend the densities and thicknesses of history. It might be through the act of sharing with the spectator one’s incomprehensibility that meaning is allowed to emerge. In making the act of framing (which I understand as an act of moving-towards) visible and/or audible, qualities of constructedness and fabrication come equally to the fore, as does an etching of a historical topos in its manifoldness.4 Causality is, in my view, re-figured through the process of montage in the way images activate or are triggered by their neighboring images, sounds and speech, as well as the silences and pauses, creating chains of kinships. Thus the cut in the editing process acquires a tectonic valence in the transgression of its own boundary-like qualities, and in the concurrent production of new meaning.