To See is to Change: Kabir Mohanty and Devdutt Trivedi

Duration: 01:30:06; Aspect Ratio: 1.366:1; Hue: 208.866; Saturation: 0.173; Lightness: 0.253; Volume: 0.245; Cuts per Minute: 1.731; Words per Minute: 49.186

A Parallax View of 40 Years of German Video Art.

Over two days, ten artists, critics and enthusiasts present a "recuration" of the 40 Years of German Video Art (http://www.40jahrevideokunst.de), a collection being circulated internationally by the Goethe Institut. These respondents brought to the archive their own urgencies and preoccupations, and suggested that this "package" is not a sealed entity, and can be re-read as a history of encounter and entanglement between disciplines, geographies, schools of thought, agents and artforms.

A package in this form this suggests a certain stability in the category "German video art". At the same time its circulation opens up the material, and its context of production and thought, its "Germany", to review by diverse and sometimes unsolicited sources. It is our good fortune to be able to promote such activity. Sehen heißt ändern, to see is to change. For more: http://camputer.org/event.php?id=45

The 2-day screening program was held on 14th-15th November, 2008, at Jnanapravaha and Gallery Chemould in Mumbai.

Kabir Mohanty is filmmaker and video artist based in Mumbai. Kabir feels that the tremendously evolved film sensibility that we see in India both in terms of viewership and practice is narrowing, getting atrophied, and its renewal is a challenge to again both practitioners and viewers, and so this 40-year history is important to reconsider. He screens a selection of films, including a work by Gary Hill, and one of his own works.

Devdutt Trivedi is a cinephile who lectures on classical film theory and works at Osian's. Devdutt traces the development of an aesthetic through video by analyzing its spaces, temporalities and emphases, also in contrast/ regard to film. Devdutt responds to Video 50 by screening another film, Hong Kong.

Queen's Mansion, Chemould Prescott Rd, Mumbai

Shaina: We are now screening a 53-minute film before we break for lunch. We will not say anything about the film because when we come back it will lead to Kabir's presentation, which is up next. It is Robert Wilson and it is called 'Video 50'.

Video 50 (1978)by Robert Wilson :
Doris Krystof in her essay on Video 50 by Robert Wilson says "Video 50 a nearly one-hour-long sequence of ninety-eight episodes each lasting some thirty seconds, was commissioned by the German public television network ZDF and marks the first work created for television by US theater director Robert Wilson. A native of Texas, moved to New York in the mid-1960s, where he pioneered a new approach to theater with a concept whose enigmatic images and slow-motion acting left audiences fascinating and bewildered(...)In his preface to Video 50, which ZDF broadcast at 10:05 p.m. on July 20, 1978, Wilson told viewers that 'I've directed works for the stage that were 168 hours long, twenty four hours long, five hours long. For video-50 though, I opted for just thirty seconds per scene. The episodes in other words, are short, self-contained,and independent of each other.Some of them are small dramas, others short stories; and then there are portraits, still lifes, and landscapes, too'.
She adds, "The choice of music and sound effects appears to have been dictated by criteria no less random than those that determined the order in which the images were to be shown.While the visuals and soundtracj seem to match perfectly in some scenes, others are furnished with musical quotations, fragments of words or rudimentary attempts at human speech. After all,language as a means of communication has always played a subordinate role in Wilson's visually intense theater productions. In still other episodes of Video 50 there is no obvious link at all between what we see and what we hear. Indeed, many of Wilson's audiovisual episodes operate according to the pattern established by the surrealists who, inspired by the famous meeting of a sewing machine and umbrella on a dissecting table described by the poet Lautreamount, aimed above all else to astonish their viewers and in doing so fire their imagination.
'1978 |Robert Wilson: Video 50 'by Doris Krystof in 40 years video art.de digital heritage: Video Art in Germany from 1963 to the present., Rudolf Frieling/Wulf Herzogenrath (Eds.), pp. 168, 170.
http://www.40jahrevideokunst.de/

Shaina: ...discussion and then we carry on with them for the next couple of hours before we break for tea and then move at the sixth o'clock.

Kabir: Welcome. It is actually hard to figure out if there is too much talking or if there are too many videos. So...or both - we are talking all the time and there are too many videos. I am actually very very confused. I am actually not going to speak very much at all...just a few minutes. Three or four minutes.Then I would like to show a nine-minute video of mine which was an installation. Can you hear me? I will speak a little louder.
A nine minute video-can you hear me now? A nine minute video which was an installation but it essentially works even if I show it like this. I am going to talk about all the things that are of present interest to me in my own work and my sense is that the community of film practitioners in our country, for some reason, have not been so interested in looking at videos from video history... I mean German video history. Forty year but video's forty-year history. And if I think of the moving image as one catch-on area then we have... film makers don't, I believe,necessarily, corroborate on it (?).

So, we have the film director who works with the moving image. We have video practitioners who actually come from, in my mind, a very very interesting backgound. The earliest, some of the earliest video practitioners had never worked with moving images till they started working with video. To me, that is actually quite amazing that they came from sound. So, I am thinking of the Bill Viola who just starts shooting with the video camera. I am thinking of Gary Hill. So, he is a sculptor and starts shooting with a video camera. Earlier, the (?) who have never worked with the moving image will start working with the video.

So that inheritance of video, to my mind, is very very interesting. So the two ways to...two things to look at. One is how does a, on the one hand, a very evolved film sensibility and I am now thinking of film-making as a film director and the moving image with a hundred year history. When video comes along, what happens? How do these people respond to video practices? And what does it mean to their work? The other is all the people working with the moving image who do not come from the film ensemble practice. So, the sculptors and the sound people and the people who first start working on video. What do they take as moving image inheritance? Bill Viola, in fact, talks about how film is one of video's biggest inheritances. And I think this either/or thing is probably not very useful at all. So, I don't think the two are completely different. I don't think the two are the same. And, I think, it is more complex and nuanced. For one, I will just point to two very very simple things which are of complete interest to me and Devdutt who is here with us is a film-mad person. He has seen everything. So, it is good to have Devdutt who can draw on an encyclopaedic knowledge, as far as I am concerned, of film.
Whilst much early video work was made primarily in relation to the medium of television and in response to its ubiquity, sine the 1990's, many artists it seems, have been preoccupied with the careful study with the language of cinema and how it might be incorporated into the visual art vocabulary.
The greatest discovery for some of us has been that cinema is a 'total' art form, simultaneously embodying media from photography, music, painting, sculpture and performance, to theatre. The use of 'narrative' in video art is of immense interest and is still in development. Many artists have grown ambitious in the formulation of their concepts no longer satisfied with expressing ideas in a single image, but in a group of images and in a way that allows them to tell a 'story'.
One of the greatest impacts of the moving image in the visual arts has been to encourage artists to be more ambitious- by abandoning studio art, by stepping into the world, by blurring boundaries between mediums and by working collaboratively.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Introduction' by Shirin Neshat in 'Video Art: A guided tour', Catherine Elwes, University of Arts, London (ED), 2005, pp. 10.
The visual language of cinema is a language of a story structure, whose grammar is made up of the shot. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, 'a shot is a shot is a shot'. Like Stein's poetry, the shot has its own complexities, hard realities and its emotional or intellectual side. The director has to figure what exactly he or she wants the shot to say to the audience.
Since the shot itself is the smallest element that makes up the scenario, it dictates its own psychological, artistic and intellectual demands. Many variables are involved in the content of the shot; the sequence of the shots cannot be static. The story has to move. The individual shots have to flow like music. They must be paced so as to follow one another with appropriate speed.
Although a shot might have within it, a changing perspective, angles, or changes of camera lens or focus, the shot should result in an onward force of cumulative action imparting a totality to the film itself.

So, if I think of film-making and I am thinking of the age of film-making. Essentially, the building block was a shot. Technically it is an on-off. That was the building block. We built with shots. When they are shots, then there is what you do with side shots and these are no and so on. There is editing and you build from these building blocks. One talks about film-makers...you can detect and feel a film-maker from the way a film-maker constructs his or her shots. So if the first shot of some body's film is very very long then the chances are that is nature of what this person is going to do. So, the shot is the building block and the entire way of working revolves around the shot.

With video, suddenly you switch on the camera and the image is right there. So when you switch on the video camera and you are looking at the video camera, you are essentially looking at what it will finally be. When one is shooting in film, when you look through, you find on the film camera...you are looking at light that has to be, I am very sure many of you might probably already know this but I just want to...you shoot on the celuloid, then you have to send it to the lab, you have to print it, depending on how you print it you see it, etc, etc, etc. So you don't see the final image. You see an imagined image. You imagine an image and you are shooting towards an imagined final thing which then projected is really large whereas you are looking at something really small. When the shot is on, it is actually flickering- you are seeing, not seeing, seeing, not seeing...its the most, I can't describe the feeling...it is the most mysterious thing...you don't quite know.
The ability of a viewer to both image and enter the bodily predicament of the artist depends on a shared time-space and a common physiology. It is the recognition of both similarity and a narrow difference that makes the empathetic process possible. The artist is me, and not-me simultaneously. Through a shared time-space, it is a species – specific empathy that video is capable of offering.
One could argue that, in its ability to conjure up another human being, video seeks to restore the mechanical production what Walter Benjamin called the lost 'aura' of the unique art object. In video, the authenticating imprint of the artist's hand is evident and refers to the originating moment in which the subject interacted with the technology.
Inspite of being just a ghostly replica of what was there, in its organization around realism, video betrays the artist's and indeed the viewer's need to retrieve the severed connection with the absolutely unique and even magical quality of his subject.
However evanescent it is, in its electronic specificity the video image represents a moment of history frozen in the aspic of oxide coating on the surface of the tape
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'The New role of the viewer' by Jeremy Millar in 'Video Art: A guided tour', Catherine Elwes, University of Arts, London (ED), 2005, pp. 12.

So, when people go to watch their rushes, you can tell it is the first time the cinematographer, the editor, all are watching their rushes because you just...oh wow...you're not even sure what you are going to see. It is the most vulnerable moment. The great directors are so vulnerable when they are watching their rushes. With video, I am looking at a final image. Is this scary that in video I am looking at the final image? So, every time I think,that if one is looking at the final image then maybe one can treat it like that as in to do whatever to it at that time as if one is improvising.

So, what I mean by that is you could switch on the camera and say I am not going to switch it off so easily. So, let the construction...I'll...just to my mind, I think of it as a section of time. So even though technically it is an on-off, it is a section of time. And let's say I switch on the camera, I am looking at a final image and I'll do something with it which is final. I am going to see everything that I am doing then and there. All gestures are final. It is as if I am making a very very quick drawing. And in that one section I am going to try and complete the drawing. That is now not how we thought of the on-off that we call a shot, in a film.

So, there is just one thing about, in both cases, the on-off are treated differently. You dont have to do...it is not as if...if you are doing film you do the former and if you are doing video, you do the latter. Not at all. So what I am saying is not absolutely true. They are practitional, sort of, hunches. And these are things that you work with and you can feel about some of these things strongly and it is not about whether you are right or wrong but what you are going to say through these things or what does this allow you to say.

So this is one thing about an on-off just differently seen in the two and then one could use the former kind of on-off or which is a shot in video birth also and, I believe, this has also happened where the latter kind of on-off has come into film. So imagine...a fine example of that is Sukorov's 'Russian Ark' which is a 100-minute long work but it is not a hundred minute long work. It is the switch-out that is hundred minutes like Andy Warhol's, I think, experiments. This is, I would say, a profound work because it is not a physical time that he is working with. So, it is the experience of time. And to me that is one of the most...when you have that experience you feel you are on the inside of that medium. And so that's...and I don't know if Sokurov would have done that if video had not been there and you had this loss in situation. So what he is doing inside that 100 minutes, of course, is working with mise-en-scene, working with a number of things that film-makers do but suddenly you have this thing where one has profoundly affected the other one.
The wide angle lens produces the effect that is the exact opposite of what was celebrated by Andre Bazin as one of the focal points of multilayered reality: the wide lens rather emphasizes the gap between the hero and his environs, simultaneously rendering visible the way in which the hero's excessive libidinal force almost anamorphicly distorts reality.
The depth of field- which, by way of the wide angle lenses, distorts reality, curves its space by pathologically exaggerating the close up of the main character and bestows on the reality that stretches upon a strange, dreamlike quality- thus accentuates the gap that separates the main character from social reality.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Four Discourses, Four subjects' by Slavoj Žižek in 'Cogito and the Unconscious', 1998, pp. 93.

The second one and I will stop is the idea of scale. So, over this very long period my sense is that film has established a scale which is meant to be seen on a larger projected surface in a darkened room whereas video has...it is not so clear what video's scale is and it could be many many things. Sculptors and video-makers and film-makers have all explored them in many, many different ways. I have too in some ways. And scale is not unrelated to the first thing that I mentioned, which is how do you think...or what is your building block is or how do you think of a shot? So I will show a nine minute video and then I will invite Devdutt and we will continue in some sort of improvisatory way. Nine minute, ya.

I'd like to invite Devdutt. Only the first shot was silent after that it was not at all silent.

It's alright. It is...All of it is really around the threshhold of what we are hearing, not hearing. It has been mixed for certain conditions of viewing and certain speakers, how far you are. The sound track changes dramatically depending on whether you are close or far because of the spectrum of frequencies used. So,the fact that it was an installation and you would watch it and that was playing as a sort of loop meant that one could explore density of image and sound simultaneously in a different way because it was intrinsically connected to watching it many times. Though when you watch film, you just watch it once and you leave the space. So it has always been a very, very tricky thing that how do you use the loop? Conceptually, how do you use the loop? So, between three of us, the sound recordists,some very fine sound recordists - Rasoolullah, Madhavchari who is a jazz musician and myself-we were on the soundtrack for a very, very long time. That's beside the point. But I am just saying that...the fact that it was an installation and that you watch it, could watch it, like a loop. We just started working with sound independantly of image. So,we were working on sound, recording sound, sound editing, making sound pieces happen independantly of the image for a very long time. Slowly,we got this thing together.
Devdutt...

Its a very (inaudible)... There is a very wide range of, I think, interests among the people who have looked at this package closely and I think that is important and we were hoping that, somehow, we can draw on each one these different people depending on what we start talking about and we can go back towards some of the works. We can also open it out in some sort of limited way first, just to the people who have been looking at the package very carefully and closely and subsequently to everybody else.
Devdutt: (inaudible)
Kabir: My back has been hurting very badly. That's why sitting is a big problem for me. So I am just going to...I will stand back, I can stand here..stand wherever you want.

Shaina: Kabir, pardon me but could you also introduce the Wilson film?
Kabir: I have nothing to say about the Wilson film. Except I am really interested in...here is a really great theatre director and what does he do with video. I believe this is the first video he makes. I am not absolutely sure. And what he does...First thing, that whole connection between the lens and reality which is something that film people play with. He is saying, ok I am going to use the lens to show you something which could be real but Ii am going to make everything flak.That aspect of what does somebody do who is not a film maker when they start working with the moving image what do they do. To me, it is a great sourcebook of the imagination that does not come from within films. That is the part I find most interesting and of course, the great work of Rebecca Horn.What does she do? I think she is doing everything she does and doing moving image work at the same time.That for me, is a remarkable achievement. I don't feel the same way about the other people that were around, Valie Export and all. I think they are doing what they have set out to do which is working with a set of concerns that they have whereas Rebecca Horn is doing all of that and more.Whichever one is right, of course that doesn't matter but as far as the upcoming spot into the middle of moving image work, it is...
Every single thing in that Robert Wilson piece is thirty seconds long. I read that. I didn't...So then I sat with a clock and I said, is actually every shot thirty seconds long? And every shot is thirty seconds long except two towards the end...so every shot is thirty seconds long. So he has done away with... So he is imposing an abstract sense of time on it where everything is thirty seconds long.Then when you think of how things pulse in...so, it is actually creating a very very different kind of rhythm.I think of it as two extremes.Here you have somebody working with rhythm in a very different way.And I think of a a lot of great musicians' works...alaap like.So,alaap in the drupad sense where there is a sense of pulsing time. You can't keep beat to it. As if it is, there are gestures and it is pulsing but you cannot keep beat to it whereas a more rhythmic work, you can keep beat to it.
The visual language of cinema is a language of a story structure, whose grammar is made up of the shot. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, 'a shot is a shot is a shot'. Like Stein's poetry, the shot has its own complexities, hard realities and its emotional or intellectual side. The director has to figure what exactly he or she wants the shot to say to the audience.
Since the shot itself is the smallest element that makes up the scenario, it dictates its own psychological, artistic and intellectual demands. Many variables are involved in the content of the shot; the sequence of the shots cannot be static. The story has to move. The individual shots have to flow like music. They must be paced so as to follow one another with appropriate speed.
Although a shot might have within it, a changing perspective, angles, or changes of camera lens or focus, the shot should result in an onward force of cumulative action imparting a totality to the film itself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'The Shot: Part II: The Visual Language of Cinema' by John Hart in 'The art of storyboard: storyboarding for film, TV and animation', 1999, pp. 184, 186.

DT: So, I am sorry for behaving like an old man.It's just that I have been feeling a bit low for the past half an hour and I have prepared all this but (inaudible).
(Confusion)
Kabir started by mentioning the differences between video and film (inaudible)...

DT:... I don't think I can speak all this ( inaudible)I am contradicting all of what I have done, the very instrument...

DT:...which is much more important, maybe maybe not. But one thing that I'd like to respond to, to start off with is,that in both film and video is the succession of ideas in time. So one thing is, which both of us have had extended conversations, is that I speaking for myself presently am opposed to language, you know and we are trying to communicate through language which I think is a very problematic thing. It is a very problematic thing and we should be aware of that to start off with.In fact, I would like to go against language. But I can't because I won't be able to say it presently. But, I still have to say this that the entire idea of a communication is something that I find a very problematic thing.It is not necessary for anything and hopefully we can enter the domain of ideas which is something that Kabir was talking about. An idea as something which is much more interesting than explanation.There is no need for anything to be explained, as far as I am concerned.But Kabir mentions scales and I think that scales can also be relayed to scales of a method in which you name the film which you might refer to.And obviously you have fast scales in music and I was talking to a very senior musician just yesterday and he was mentioning how he approaches a note, you know.And just how difficult that is. We were talking about He says that...And he was playing this video of his teacher and he was predicting what would come next in the succession. You are taken aback. You are in office and you are supposed to be working and things like that.And one thing that he said is that there are three ways by which you can approach one particular note in the succession which is you can either...which is directly move above it or approach it below it.So these are just different approaches but make the point that approach.Just the approach to something without them meaning anything for now is something which has had tremendous possibilities for me.And also maybe because I haven't had dinner and this idea came to me which I have been thinking about which is that I was watching the Horn film and I am not speaking in this order but what the hell. I was watching the Horn film and the entire notion of gravity is a very problematic thing for me, you know.

DT: And I think that most representations, I am not interested in representing what occurs in a particular space. Yes, it is important to have a space. We exist in this space but it's very...it is taken for granted. For me the ideal would be, which I hope video someday can address is where we are completely imagining a space which means that we have sound tracks and that can extract something we imagine.We watch it as we would imagine it and then we have questions of science which can read our minds and then project the image that opposes the soundtrack. in an interesting way, you know. And so this is where I would just like to ask Kabir to respond to whatever rubbish I have said so that I can go on.Otherwise this seems like too much of a succession.

KM: I share Devdutt's scepticism about representation completely.I share Devdutt's reservations about representation but as far as language goes, I think it is important to distinguish ...I think one can talk but like when I am talking I am not necessarily talking about that thing.That thing that is done, that is perspiring when one is working.And talking about that...one can...it aids one in, very often.Because that is all we have to communicate with to people. But it is not the thing that one does...I am saying doing, the act of doing and by doing I mean even thinking is doing. So I would say great film directors are great thinkers. So doing as in hands-on doing gives rise to things that we can then talk about. But I dont have this scepticism about talking.
Member from audience: is doing too.Speech-acts.
KM: But I am not sure.I am not sure. For a practitioner if it is that thing.Of course it is doing but it is not that thing.For me if I could reduce something, some way to a linguistic set of things, to me that is a lesser work which doesn't mean that I don't want to talk about it but...I don't think moving image work can be read. I think it is pre-verbal, it is gestural. It cannot be read.I can talk about that.I can talk about Rebecca Horn's work but it is not that.
Member from audience: ( The question has been cut half-way through)...We are not trying to replicate what we are seeing...

KM: ...recognition.So you recognise this feels right.When one is talking we don't know it.

KM: I mean this also is about...what is in the air, atmosphere as to what, how people talk about past practices and so on.Let's share something with Devdutt.
DT:Yes, we were just talking about this in a very different context on having this very strange, different festival which would show Asian films and that it is not necessary to recognise and label it as Asian film or, for that matter, anything.So I will just continue from where I left. It is like I pressed a pause button and...
So, I am opposed to this idea of gravity,you know.I find it a very problematic thing, you know and I was watching the Rebecca Horn film amd like so many other things, I find that this is all culminating at one point and as Mani Kaul says that it shouldn't culminate at any point.So it recedes to infinity and it shouldn't because there is no perespective.All of this seems to culminate at one particular point and it seems to be closest to the earth, you know and everything is going down. Your camera movement is going down.The fan is placed down. You have a bird that is down. It is just a very simple thing.You can ignore it as being a dumb little thing I said but it is just to represent as to why can't we be free of this notion of gravity so that we can start doing such strange things as magic, astral travel and make much more interesting films.So just as I would like to oppose language, I would like to oppose this...I am sorry.Kaushik is not here except I am a fascist and I may sound like the voice of Doctor Mabuse, its a German Islam film.But,I think there is a certain proliferation and there is a proliferation of several things-temporalities which are sort of clubbed together by these objects which seem to dominate a space and the nature of these objects is such that, I don't why, I am trying to think about it myself that, it doesn't seem to allow a space for other objects which of course is a very problematic thing, and therefore fascist.

DT: Uh, someone is pushed at the front and some one is pushed at the back.Then someone is...Afterwards, it reaches it ends.So we watch the first shot of the film which Kabir says how is this being shot.But we also see it as something which should lead to an end and that is it, then some operations that will or may not be perform.So a completely operations-based thing that I am...(cut).
DT: And then you think that the function of x and then over such and such, they belong together.And this is an answer and that is it.But not a very significant thing to have an answer but a process to move ahead.This is just one succession, one succession from zero to x which end.I have just been thinking about this, you know,some of you are bored and one person walked up and, say, head out, go to a place across that has good brownies, have a brownie for forty five rupees, give him fifty rupees, get five back. We have said here on karagarga, upload gb, download gb, minor transaction based exercises which Bresson talks about...(cut).

DT:...receding to x and public domain as something which in...So, let's see,I am a succession of my life,I'm so and so years old, I was in this school.That's a succession of my life,studied, so such and such space in America, and the other teacher, critic and such things, his succession and both of us going out for coffee in a public domain as in two separate successions which are not relevant enough to be sort of clumped together as half because they are two successions and the temporality of x allows...(cut).
DT: I have been thinking about, of course, again proliferation of objects with reference to the Wilson film. How are these objects behaving in this space? Why is this telephone here?This telephone will ultimately lead us to some strange kind of Takashi Miike genre image maybe or maybe not.And the kind of fetishism to the repetition occurring again and again.Such interpretations can exist.But just that, apparent succession has been a very problematic thing.Because it is just one thing leading to an end and I find it very strange, I am talking about scales, how does language, something that I am opposed to enter these scales with reference to cinema.

(confusion)

DT: And space is something, just to end, which is very different from medium.I know that my points are disconnected but it's just that I have been thinking about these things much like Kabir has about his works. Space is very different from medium. The space is an opportunity where two things are the same but the difference between things makes it a medium.And that's something that is lying when you think of different successions coming together,it becomes very problematic because exchanges are very difficult. I mean, I am trying to think about scales with reference to cinema and language and I find there are three.We can go from zero to three and that's it.So you have Breathless, kuch nahi, zero, nothing.You have The Young One- one.You A Bout de Souffle,the second Breathless and then you have Ghatak in scales of three and such things.And I think that ok two to the scale of four, eight to the scale of two,I am sorry, four to the scale of two, eight to the scale of two, two cube to the scale of seventeen.To make a film to the scale of seventeen would be a very difficult thing. To make a film to the scale of twenty three. So, I think that one sucession of scales and to make a film of twenty three different successions, I think that would be something that I should wrap up with.I actually want to...I think we should start with the films now.I initially wanted to (inaudible).I essentially just have only one film to show which is made in this ship, which is a sort of proliferation of objects which I have been talking about. I also wanted to show Sun in Your Head which has also been screened.And I had to show Hong Kong HAg. And I will just say one thing about Nuclear Football as well as Sun in Your Head that what I found interesting about the film (inaudible)and I would have liked to respond to Hong Kong HAG and to what Kabir said but I just couldn't find the film. The other film, of course, is a very short film which I forget the name of because I wasn't very concerned to show it. Perhaps instead of me introducing it, we will watch it and maybe then discuss it.

(Video dismissed)

Pad.ma requires JavaScript.