We exist in a gap, in a narrative drawn up in the infinity of ghosts that he stages. We thus exist in this film which is also a life and that we try to talk about because we cannot say it. At this moment, we are petrified in a present whose hemorrhage calls us to memories even ignored. The memory drags in the daily constraint. It becomes an asylum. We are locked in as much as protected. In Phrase movie as in the words of Duras “There is always something in yourself, in you, that society has not reached, inviolable, impenetrable and decisive”. She heals, she turns away finally she secures us. The book, by these three authors, foolish to be outside the distraction, crazy not to give in to the songs of those condemned to psychic anemia, takes us where complexity still plays the four hundred blows on a conscience wasted by narcissistic completeness. There, where otherness is not formulated as a desire for a mirror, but as a plural subject, where an “I” sick of itself accepts to disguise itself as a utopian us. There are no chapters, there are no signatures, only the typography refers to a named thought and nothing is explained. We enter, with full gaze, into this fragmented work where pedagogy is excluded to allow the rhythm of the story shots to strike the imagination. They are written in an uncertain since subject to the hazard of the other. The movement takes shape in this improvisation. Phrase movie has the melancholy charm of complexity. It looks like “fragments of speech” that one would have found on a bench, and that one would connect in “cine / sentences”. We discover an imprint, that of a time when erudite references unfold in a joyful intoxication and where no nostalgia comes to burden the landscape. It is a book against “tragedy” to put it like Vertov. They write as they are, in exiles, outside a “cinédrama” where the elder would dictate his infamy in the future.
For them as for Borges, the book “Is not an isolated entity: (…) it is the axis of countless relationships” and they understand it that way. They do not develop a theory. They try their hand at practical work. They restore a library where cinema and literature shape our future anatomy. They agree to provide us with weapons, poetic axioms to keep in our pockets in case tomorrow is yet to be invented. They testify and question in this work of the screen and its “stubborn eye” which they do not trust without words, since “it is through words and between words that we see and hear ”.
