Freedom Accelerators – Vertigo movie analysis essay
Picture suggestion for Vertigo Movie Ending
One effect of entering the geological space-time of is that we lose our bearings – referentially, philosophically, perceptually – and find ourselves tipping into a nauseous loss of balance that is the very definition of vertigo. The disequilibrium occurs when we can no longer separate our own secure viewing space from the dizzying sight of the real that surrounds us (are we not a part of these geologies, are they not consuming us, reconfiguring our very environment?); nor do we have the distance to dissociate beauty from terror. Taking the expanded spatialisation and extended temporality of the sea – what eco-critic Timothy Morton might call a “hyperobject,” which, owing to its unbounded scale and geological time, displaces human epistemologies and representational capacities – Akomfrah attempts nonetheless to subject it to a frame, in accordance with the monumentalising terms of his triptych-based model of expanded cinema and his use of spectacular imagery, which propose a scenography of modern history, both beautiful and terrible. By doing so, I would suggest, Akomfrah shows us that this filmic construction is but one integral part of the very grotesque attempt at dominating nature.
Essay on movie vertigo / Term paper Help
To be clear, doesn’t shirk from showing us the unparalleled splendour of aquatic nature; this is, in fact, a courageous act of refusing contemporary cynicism, which has given up on beauty even while it rightfully sees beauty itself as threatened, if not colonised, by consumerist spectacle. The film thereby courts the risk of being accused of naïve aestheticisation, and of a hackneyed politico-ecological manoeuvre of critically juxtaposing natural and human beauty with terrible scenes of industrial exploitation. Yet nature, one might rightfully respond, is intrinsically aesthetic, and beauty a part of life itself, one that Akomfrah portrays in its fullest glory. On the other hand, the film provides glimpses of the destruction of that beauty, especially where aesthetic delectation mediates the destruction of a species, the violence of climate change, and the mass death of migrants. There’s something crucial in this vertiginous sea of philosophical speculation that the film initiates about our contemporary response to violence, whether ecological or human. For it is of course intolerable when our image-saturated media invite us to enjoy scenes of violence through their movie-like aestheticisation. The intolerability, as Jacques Rancière has noted in related contexts, identifies not only the unbearable reality that such images show, but also the numbing, anaesthetising capacity of such images, which can also be excoriating. interrogates both aspects, showing their logic at work in scenes of slavery, ecocide, and migration, and provoking a reconfiguration of the visible without any simple lesson.