The problem is we make a great film—‘Citizen Kane’—but for whatever reason we don’t go back and rewatch. As we fail to rewatch, the film fails to exist. On the other hand, it exists anyway. Art needs no audience, and film01 may even be the first work of art designed to exist with no audience at all forever. But what has happened? What is rewatchability? Film01 as the cut between social media and media, the TL and pure cinema, has to engroove itself with rewatchability. Without rewatchability there is no addiction as harness for training of new idealities and infinity axioms. In other words, film01 is the zone of iterability as computation for the number of extinction, and so depends to a certain extent on a white background of audience as zero factor (the ‘nyc cut’). We have to allow the thing to repeat. One way to do that is via sensorial gossip. That is the classical first phase angelicism mode. For example, you go to film01 to find yourself—to literally see your own face. The film will contain hundreds of known faces from ‘the scene’ and internet history and so you go to see your face on a screen for the first and last time again and again. This is addiction (rewatchability) cross-haired as computation (rotating extinction qua extinction). Especially in the case of the 10hr ‘paradise cut’ (the two cuts are 0 and 1) one can search and search for your own history, your own appearance in a great film—your own filmicity heat-signature in the last century of the secret. We can say we pursue an art form because our idea matches a medium. We choose cinema as medium because it’s time to film the TL, to make my life a essay film and my film essay a life.¹
1 Let us call the rewatchability theorem the Zodiac Principle after the Fincher film. Expressed as simply as possible, it is: any great film fails to be filmicity insofar as it fails to invite concentrated rewatchability. A film can be very great and yet of no need of repetition. What does this mean for the rotation of pure space beyond all cultural relativism? |
