"Human Surrender" and an unending rehearsal.
Who has the right to stop?
This article is not about "why do people surrender" but: who can stop when rehearsals, life and public performances are included?
The rehearsal room is not just a scene, it is a machine that makes "continue" reasonable. This map is a concept map and is not used for film plays.
In the original structure of Human Surrender
It's buried all the danger it's left behind.
Three people enter closed black spaces: directors, leading men, leading women. They are going through a dialogue that has failed again and again.
The first part is driven by complex long lenses and repeated rehearsals, designed as a game challenge.
；
Second, the camera leaves the black box, follows actors into life, rest and entertainment, and collects the day-to-day into a "film database".
；
In the third part, the actor comes to the real audience and finishes a public show that is no longer fake.
This structure appears to be gradually de-controlled.
First, there is a disciplined indoor filming, then a loosely open life record, and then the right to create is given to the actor, so that the real thing happens in front of the audience. But if you look at these three parts together, you'll find the movement in the opposite direction
It is not the movie that gradually withdraws from life, it is the film that gradually takes over life.
It's still a set outside the box. Rest can also be material.
Silence, hesitation, deterioration of relationships and temporary loss of control can all be renamed part of the work.
At the end of the day, it became more difficult for the audience to enter the scene.
It's not just how three people lost their communication.
It's shooting a rehearsal how it gets bigger and bigger.
Finally, there was no life left out of rehearsal.
A rehearsal is not a preparation. It's a substitute.
"The Last Rehearsal" originally had a science fiction shell.
The final negotiations between humanity and the diaspora are about to take place to determine fate. In order to ensure the success of the negotiations, the parties first held a rehearsal. Rehearsals, ostensibly for the future, are in fact quickly replacing the future: real negotiations have not yet taken place and people have been trapped in a simulation of negotiations.
This is the most powerful setting, not an alien, nor a conspiracy.
It's "rehearsal."
Rehearsals meant that mistakes could be repeated. Wrong, say it again; no relationship has been established; another approach has been tried; this failure may be better next time. But the rehearsal in Human Surrender does not lead to completion.
It continues to return to the same difficulty without really changing the difficult conditions.
Every time, it's like a chance.
Every time they start again, they push people deeper.
The first part is particularly accurate in designing rehearsals as games. Game allows failure, but does not allow players to question the rules. You can change speed, tone, strategy, you can choose where to start again, but you can't ask: Why must I continue playing?
This is the most important power relationship in the film.
On the surface, there is a great deal of freedom for participants. They can improvise, they can clash, they can say heavy words, and they can even attack the whole project. But all of these freedoms happen in a premise that has already been set
Content must continue to be generated on the ground.
Failure is no longer an accident in the shooting.
Failure is shooting what is needed.
The more difficult it is to communicate, the closer the film is to its subject; the more the relationship breaks down, the greater the intensity of the work; and the more people are unable to maintain their role, the more the camera gets a material that is difficult to forge.
Here's a problem that can't be easily bypassed
If a film was to fail in advance, would the real failure of the participants be a disruption to the plan or would the plan finally succeed?
2x2 failed communication, successful production
Human Surrender is often understood as a failed communication device.
This judgment is only half right.
As a communication device, it did fail. The characters keep talking, but the language cannot reach the other. Questions were answered, no answers were given; the facts were corrected and pain was not acknowledged; everyone was trying to explain himself, but the misunderstanding was growing.
But as an image production device, it works very successfully.
Communications fail, creating tension.
Tensions persist, producing performances.
Show break, make real.
Really out of control, making movies.
The sharpest point of this is that it transforms the failure of communication into a success. People don't get nothing, films get material.
The second part, known as the "film database", makes this relationship clearer. The camera follows the actors into their daily lives and records their rest, recreation and coexistence. The key here is not the boundary between the documentary and the play, but rather that life begins to lose uncensored parts.
When life is understood as a database, it is no longer just itself.
A walk may be a material, a chat may gain meaning in the future, and a fatigue may be evidence of the status of the person. Even refusing to film could be interpreted by the film as a form of resistance worth recording.
People don't really leave the role.
It's just a more subtle way to follow him.
This is also a familiar desire in contemporary art
The creators were tired of acting falsely, so they reached out to life; they were tired of writing well, and they asked the participants to tell the truth; and they were tired of the role, and they demanded that people "be themselves".
But being yourself is not necessarily more free than playing a role.
The role is at least boundary. Show's over, actors can leave.
When creation requires a person to contribute "the real person", he gives away skills, time and body.
He began to hand over relationships, memories, vulnerabilities, even those he had not yet understood.
The film says, "Don't perform."
But the camera was still there.
At this point, "real" does not come naturally.
The truth is driven by a constant expectation.
How can a dangerous word be reasonably corrected?
The most worthwhile thing to return to in the film is not the most ambitious declaration, but the very simple conversation
"Kill me."
"No one wants to kill you."
The second sentence may be entirely correct at the factual level. No one is prepared to commit a murder, and no one admits that he intends to do so. It may even be out of panic and protection: pull a dangerous word back to a manageable reality and prevent the scene from slipping into a worse position.
But it did not answer the first sentence.
The first sentence is not a statement of facts about the intent of others. It's not the wrong version of "someone tried to kill me".
It is more like an impact on the scene: normal language can no longer stop anyone, and those who speak can only push sentences to extremes.
And the respondents are still correcting.
This is where Human Surrender is colder than "no response".
The world is not silent.
The world answered, and the answer was reasonable, accurate and civilized. It rules out incorrect understanding and restores linguistic order while leaving those who speak out of it.
Many of the words in the film have undergone similar changes.
"Love" no longer confirms a relationship and begins to demand proof.
The "director" is no longer a profession, but who has the right to define the place of the field.
"Audience" is not just a viewer, but a reason why performance must continue.
"The game" no longer means ease, but the rules can package harm as voluntary participation.
"Responding" no longer leads to the other, but becomes a way for respondents to maintain their own normality.
Words are not simply meaningless. They can still be used, even more frequently than before.
The problem is they changed the camp.
They were supposed to connect people and then start protecting structures.
So the language in the film is not the ruins left by the failure of communication. It itself is part of the operation on the ground. People prove in language that they are still rational, concerned and dealing with issues. The more complete the language, the more visible it becomes that someone cannot enter it.
The world does not need to block a person's mouth.
Every word he says is translated into a version acceptable to the world.
The four doors, the mirrors and the trance.
It's the moments that are not organized.
The door, the mirror, the eyes, the pause, the misheard, the bullshit, and the mood.
These are not like declarations. They are too small to immediately assume the words "human" "modernity" or "surrender". But it's precisely these corners that retain the part of the person that has not yet fully become the argument of the work.
The door is one of the most accurate images in the film.
The door means that space can be divided and that people should be able to leave. But "staying at the door" is neither entry nor exit. A man came to the border but did not complete his move.
This is more disturbing than really leaving.
Leaving is at least a decision. Stays indicate that exports exist but are not possible.
He may not know what he is after leaving, whether leaving the film amounts to leaving the relationship and whether refusing to continue would be immediately interpreted as evasion, failure or betrayal. There's the door.
The rules have entered the body.
No one needs to stop him.
He stopped at the door himself.
Mirrors and eyes ask another question: can one be seen to prove the existence of a person?
Mirrors return to image without understanding; eyes complete, but no guarantee of recognition. Cameras are especially important.
It keeps every move of a person extremely clear and still does not know what this person is going through.
Human Surrender allows for a fuller view, while confirming that it is thinning.
One of the lightest of the resistance is to be lost.
It does not provide information, does not promote conflict and does not fulfil its role. A person is still on the scene, but is not immediately organized into an answerable, interpretable and performing shape.
It's not heroic.
It is not even firm enough to be easily called resistance. But it interrupts the device briefly: you have to say something, you have to prove that you are still involved, and you have to make this moment meaningful.
You don't have an answer to the movie.
And that is why it may be the few moments in the film that have not yet been fully filmed.
But the camera can still film it.
The most disgusting part of the device is here: even unproven gestures can be explained afterwards.
There is no rejection of natural security.
The door here is not a guarantee of an export, but a shape that "exit exists but cannot be made possible".
Five viewers make the show harder to pull back.
The third part brought actors to the real audience, which seemed to be a transfer of power.
The performance was designed by the actors themselves and the event actually took place, not pre-fabricated. The creators do not seem to have full control of the results. Actors are not just people who are scheduled, they are also producers at the scene.
But audience access does not automatically bring freedom.
The first thing the audience brought was pressure.
In the rehearsal room, a silence can only stop; in public performances, silence is awaited by dozens of eyes.
A break-up in a relationship no longer belongs to just a few people in the relationship, and it begins to bear the brunt of the performance.
Actors are no longer just dealing with each other, but there is a group that is judging whether this is worth watching.
The real audience won't let the show go.
They'll make the show impossible to reverse.
This is also the most modern level of film. We live in an era of constant demands for the disclosure of private experience.
Trauma needs to be told, vulnerability needs to be demonstrated and relationships need to be explained.
Publicity is often described as a form of liberation: when you say it, when someone sees it, things change.
But Human Surrender shows another possibility.
Being seen may also make it more difficult for people to leave their pain.
When a part of the pain is recognized by the audience, it is preserved by the camera and named by the work, it is no longer just an experience. It began to become the public image of this person. Someone will know him from that moment, comment on him, understand him.
And he may not be the man in the moment anymore.
Films can be played repeatedly.
One cannot return to the time and add a word to himself.
Publicity does not automatically mean that power is shared. Sometimes it just makes extraction more complete.
The audience is not an automatic liberation force. Too often, the audience simply makes one silence more difficult to withdraw.
Director Six can expose himself, but still have an explanation. Rights
The director's position in this film cannot simply be understood as a manipulator hiding behind the camera.
The director himself has entered the role system. The creator was not completely invisible, and he exposed his failures, desires and control. This makes it much more complicated than a cold social experiment.
But complexity is not equal to equality.
The director can expose himself and still have final editing rights; he can admit that he created pressure and still has the right to name pressure; he can lose control on the ground and can still reinterpret that loss of control once the work has been completed.
Others are more likely to be static.
Their hesitation would be hesitation, silence would be silence, and a word too heavy might forever replace all their subsequent amendments.
This is a time inequality.
The participants were kept in the shooting.
The director can continue to live after the shooting.
Therefore, self-criticism cannot be a form of impunity for creators.
A film that admits to violence does not mean that violence has been addressed. Proposing themselves suspicious and sometimes strengthening the authority of the work: See, I've even considered the charges against myself.
The real question is not whether the director is sincere.
Truth is too easy to be the end of judgement.
The question should be asked
Who has the right to withdraw the images? Who can refuse a final explanation? Does the film allow this denial to enter itself when the participants believe that the work is not about themselves?
If the final interpretation is still to be done only by the work, the "co-creation" remains a clear boundary.
Others contribute irreversibly to life.
The director organizes how these lives are seen.
The word "human" will magnify responsibility and dilute it.
"Human Surrender" is a powerful name and a dangerous expansion.
It has pushed the plight of several human beings into the human race as a whole, turning a concrete failure into a symptom of civilization. The work thus gained weight, but it could also dilute what was needed most.
When we say "modern human responses fail", it is easy to forget who did not catch at some point.
When we say "people can no longer be set free", it is easy to forget who designed this site, which must be constantly searched for.
When we say "relationships, languages and films have failed", concrete choices may disappear into grand failures.
But the end is not automatic.
It consists of a series of small decisions
One more word.
One more minute.
Don't interrupt now.
I'm sure next time will be closer to reality.
Leave this part.
It should be judged later.
None of these decisions resembled atrocities. They can even be reasonably explained. That is why a desperate situation can be created.
What is most important for the work is to raise this specific responsibility prematurely to "the common destiny of mankind". The larger the word "human", the easier it is to get smaller.
All are victims of the times, and the differences between those who control and those who are trapped by the rules are blurred.
This does not mean that Human Surrender cannot talk about humanity.
Rather, it must first answer: What happened between these people before they became "human"?
Otherwise, "surrender" would become a beautiful philosophy.
The process of creating surrender is not accountable.
Eight strong pieces leave evidence against themselves.
The point of Human Surrender is not that it proves its concept.
It didn't wash its hands.
The film shows us how care becomes forced to ask, how freedom loses meaning in fixed rules, how life is gathered into material, how it really becomes both the risk of participants and the capital of works.
It also allows us to see: a critically controlled film that can continue to be controlled; a film that questions performances, which can demand real performances; and a film that seeks to expose the failure of relationships, which can do itself from the failure of relationships.
These contradictions do not weaken the work.
They're works.
Therefore, the simple praise of "Human Surrender" as "daunted to the truth" is its decline. It is just as simple as accusing it of exploitation.
It's more like a movie that can't be separated from itself.
The mechanism it exposes also operates within it; its power of criticism is also in its form; and its manifestations are not just people in the picture, but also the filming itself.
It makes it dangerous.
It is also worth continuing the discussion.
Who has the right to turn off the camera?
Thus, the deepest question of Human Surrender is not "why people surrender".
But who has the right to end a play?
If an actor can say anything but can't stop the shooting, it is not freedom.
It is not open if all of life is allowed to enter the film, but not a part of it can be kept out of it.
It is not equal if the audience can see everything and the person who is seen cannot withdraw from himself for a moment.
It is not co-authorship if the director recognizes his or her authority and still has the final explanation.
"Kill me" may be here.
It is not necessarily a request for death. It is more like a phrase forced to the end of the language: if an ordinary refusal does not stop the scene, then only a sentence that undermines the whole order of the scene.
And the scene still says
"No one wants to kill you."
It corrects the sentence.
The film didn't end there.
The question is not just how to make it more real, but who has the right to have it stopped.
This is the real wound of Human Surrender
One person has to say so much, and others are temporarily aware that the so-called dialogue may have ceased long ago
And so-called rehearsals are long gone for a future.
Rehearsals have become life itself.
Human beings do not lose to a stronger race.
Humans have lost a more familiar order
Go on.
Again.
Speak up.
Let's see the real you.
And it's not how to make it real.
When someone finally can't go on...
Who exactly has the right to turn off the camera.
Brain Ashford
Film theorist and cultural critic. His work focuses on the intersection ofcinema, philosophy, and late modernity.
Brian Ashford, British film critic and cultural critic, focuses on the intersection of film, philosophy and late modernity.
P4 Theater post
It's not a trio, it's a three-axis coordinates - the media base for movies, dramas and documentaries, cognitive contracts and performing politics.
What's left of the psychoanalytic when the explanation doesn't reach the pain?
From a body to a tablet: How did the early Chinese ancestors talk to the living?
The aesthetics of the event: The Power of Change for Performing Erica Fisher-Lisht
The drama is written on the sand.
p4 Third subject of theoretical analysis: a comprehensive exploration of Thomas Ogden's "third presence" theory
Theatre and Psychoanalysis
"Human Surrender" was produced and written with participants
This is a recruitment case for Human Surrender.
The Last Rehearsal, the The Last Rehearsal of Human Surrender
Art, the beginning of Human Surrender -- will aliens come again?
This is the last rehearsal! It's true!
Human Surrender, make me a whale. I have too little.
Human Surrender A Zoo and then you become a little girl...
Human Surrender R | "First Experiment in Beijing"
Human Surrender D. Zoo, one more time.
Human Surrender K. Twirlings.
Human Surrender S. Zoo, everything is new.
The Last Rehearsal of Love, Death, Human Surrender
Human Surrender disappeared from me - after the The Last Rehearsal.
Human Surrender criticizes
No longer loyal to integrity - the final edition of Human Surrender Long Commentary
How words betray people - the original language structure of Human Surrender
"Human Surrender" as "the oracular work"
Why must the man with the camera surrender?
Closeness doesn't belong to two people.
Illustrated to you by the second person in the "Human Surrender"/Shoot Self with You
Novel, Zip, shoot me with you.
Don't finish me: from Eva to Human Surrender.
"Human Surrender"
Be Human Surrender.