Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

What are the differences between anarchist films and normal films?

+1 vote

I once went to a bookfair with a workshop on anarchist films, but I didn't go to it cuz i can only tolerate a certain number of workshops. Of course, there are problems that anarchists would have with motion pictures (chiefly the technology involved and how easily they seem to manipulate people), but I'm curious about what they have done  with films and what's different about them.

I tried watching debords society of the spectacle film on youtube, and it was incredibly boring which I think he did on purpose, even though at times I've found his writing to be quite entertaining

asked Dec 7, 2016 by Nihilist (50 points)
I don't think it's really possible to coherently define "anarchist film" as a category.

There have been loads and loads of films by fascists and communists, in fact the medium of film is pretty heavily defined by fascists and communists. But "fascist film" and "communist film" are still not sensible aesthetic categories in any obvious way.

Meanwhile there are very very few films made by anarchists and Society of the Spectacle is quite definitely not one of them.

Can you say more about what you are trying to get at here? It does seem  like there could be a relevant question implicit here but I'm not sure what it is.
I guess i regret not going to that workshop....

by "anarchist film", do you mean made by someone/people who consider themselves anarchists, or made about anarchists, or made from an anarchist perspective, regardless of the people who made them? perhaps all of the above? :)

1 Answer

+2 votes

i think that anarchist art of whatever sort is art that encourages people to challenge their own assumptions around authority, hierarchy, power, etc.

also, i would call most epigrammatic writing anarchist, since by its structure it requires people to engage their own interpretations and imaginations. obviously the content could be non-anarchist, but in this case i think the form is more significant than the content, maybe?

but maybe this is part of my tendency to romanticize things that are hard difficult. ha.

answered Oct 1 by dot (51,520 points)
edited Oct 3 by dot
your first paragraph: nail on head!

not sure i agree that engaging imagination and interpretation is in any way anarchist (per se), but i can like epigrams.

i guess i just love conciseness. i find that frequently, people who live by the word tend to use far too many, far too often.
"but maybe this is part of my tendency to romanticize things that are hard. ha."

boner joke ?!
...