Interview with María Rojas Arias and Andrés Jurado: Raquel Morais for The Essay Film Festival, March 2022

Fu, María Rojas Arias, Andrés Jurado, Colombia, 2018, 16mm transfer to digital, 9 minutes, Spanish with English subtitles

As part of its 2022 edition, the EFF brings together a programme of three works directed by the Colombian filmmakers and artists María Rojas Arias and Andrés Jurado, founder members of creative laboratory La Vulcanizadora: Fu (2018), The Rebirth of Carare (El renacer del Carare, 2020), and Open Mountain (Abrir monte, 2021).

EFF: Within your practice, how do you conceive of the crossing between moving image, writing, the visual arts, and expanded theatre? And how do they relate to the research dimension of your work?

We were born in a country engulfed in war, which is still at war and if there is no turning point will probably continue to be so. What we believe in as filmmakers is the product of a series of encounters and ways of doing that we learned from theatre, film and artistic practices which have always been with us. We both went to art school in Colombia, and there we came across many of the European avant-garde movements which also dealt with the experience of war. Moreover, our narrative is set in a territory which is currently undergoing convulsions that go through a complex visual regime. Our work is concerned with unravelling it.

We grew up with the idea of ​​belonging to Latin America, and thus being part of the United States’ “backyard”, while also knowing we were “children of the colony” and being aware of several other forms of historical oppressions. Assuredly, the cinema we make has to deal with this. We live in a kind of Military Theatre (Warfare), or at least that is what we have been trying to bring to light with the projects of La Vulcanizadora.

That theatricality is a very strong premise for our research because it allows us to approach different living objects as archival materials: even our own Latin American bodies and subjects can be seen as repositories containing data and physiognomic information. One can read from the territories as if they were registers of specific operations, and rediscover orality as a powerful remembrance device, which starts from a place of intense poetic resistance.

From our point of view, doing research is, above all, understanding what one does as a researcher and developing a way of doing it. The goal is to enable the possibility of repetition and expansion without needing to deal with seemingly easy yet difficult things, such as those that researchers need to contextualise at each step, accounting for the way they are working. That requires getting oneself into trouble: being willing to learn what is happening, what has happened and what will happen, not as fixed objects but as movable ones.

EFF: Can you think of specific examples, in relation to your work, where that unfixed reality is made visible and ways in which that continuing learning process takes place?

Sometimes, La Vulcanizadora reactivates dead projects, which do not seem to be of interest or that are about to disappear. In this way, we have been able to get to know other territories and other forms of understanding them, as well as new people and colleagues, different ways of feeling and grasping what is happening. We are interested in dealing with what other meanings art has had in those places. In each project, knowledge is linked to a specific place. Something we are interested in exploring and questioning is the notion that knowledge has something to do with ownership, as if knowledge was a form of ownership without property. We do not think that should be the case.

During the makingof Fu, a film we created a few years ago in Fúquene, the image of the indigenous emerged as a grotesque figure who returns and haunts dreams and narratives. For us, making films is a process that traverses art, a structure that amplifies the way in which we understand territories, landscapes as archives, and images as something that is not easy to disconnect from oral expression or memory. For example, in Fúquene, we became aware of things that had happened in the past and the way in which they impact the present time and the arts.  Figures like Simón Bolívar and José Ignacio París Ricaurte promoted and participated in an ecocide similar to that of the Ituango Dam project in the Antioquia region in actual Colombia. Many people have been responsible for that calamity since the time Simón Bolivar’s alleged independence and still responsible to this day. These same people contributed to the creation of a model in the art and cinema context, a model for how to construct the landscape and conceive it trough the exploitation of the land and of human seeing everything as resources. This is our contemporary model of knowledge: hyper-racialized, classist and patriarchal, contrary to the representation of the landscape in terms of possession, we insist in the territoriality beyond property.

EFF: In what way do you conceive of La Vulcanizadora as a collective project and what is the importance of working together and contributing to each other’s creations?

La Vulcanizadora can be seen as a collective endeavour, but it is also a project that transfers the shape of collectivity to forms of commonality, be it between us and the people we collaborate with, but also between ourselves. We may have distinct objectives and work differently, but we inhabit a common territory, a common space and time.

We are not exactly a collective. We start from something in common, from a shared experience of differences. In this way we can respect the processes of the communities and the people who collaborate with us. For example, the projects that we are carrying out now in the Colombian Amazon, in La Chorrera, and those that we are starting in Guinea-Bissau and the Caribbean are strongly connected by difference, perspective and diversity. In some cases, we have to confront collective ideas to allow us to work together and create a present aware of something that haunts it: that ghost is that the territories have been converted in a mass grave.

EFF: Do you see a connection between your practice and movements like that of Third Cinema or the tradition of militant film?

There is definitely a reconstitution of that notion of Third Cinema, and we never attempted to escape from it, on the contrary. It is like an additional muscle to be able to reflect about what we are doing, but we do not feel like heirs of the movement. We did not find our voice by thinking of ourselves as children of that movement, but it is true that we feel accompanied by the films of Marta Rodriguez, Santiago Álvarez, Glauber Rocha and other filmmakers. Still there are other more important influences that have to do with other experiences, relating to folk music, with urban lives that ask about the rural countryside, as if it were the unconscious of the State. For example, there were projects that began with us listening to music like that of Rita Indiana or Ruben Blades: songs, voices, and other calls to the spirit, perhaps less cerebral at times, but full of vigour. These are the manifestations of the avant-garde for us and of the possessed bodies we recall. So we are aware that the third cinema manifestos still have many things to tell us about the misery of Latin America and indeed the globe.

We accept militancy in the same way Third Cinema did, but ours has a different nature, perhaps as a disruptive Spiritual Militancy in a post-hunger awareness. More than being faithful to set goals, our militancy continually undermines the desire for power, the patriarchy, colonialism, and racism. We insist that our territory is cinema, that is, cinema as a territory allows us to live, make, think, eat, but, at the same time, it is clearly our place of danger. We have to defend it and invite its best allies and accomplices – art, theatre, science, magic – despite the fact that these practices have often been at the service of maintaining oppressive and petty-minded societies.

The archive, the archives that we deal with, sometimes are not actually archives. They only have the intention of being so through similar processes of creation-production or research such as those that we described above. Meaning is also debatable and that is exactly the matter, opening a dialogue between fields – art, cinema, theatre, science – in the current theatre of operations. In this context, education has had a crucial role, that of being, on the one hand, a device for the political propaganda machine and, on the other, the opportunity to liberate oneself.

EFF: There seems to be a connection between the material aspects of your films and the artisanal dimension of the practices developed by the communities you research. How is that dimension translated into your work with analogue formats, as well as into your exploration of sound and image?

There is a very fluid way of sharing out with those we work with. That fluidity also arises from the possibility of dissenting and rejecting certain conventional options that conceive of the collective or the communal as something fully consistent and without issues. Analogue film turned out to be the format of the future for us, since we were born surrounded by digital, and therefore a different technology seemed more interesting to work with. It is another way of deciphering ourselves. The figures in film are arranged in a different manner, on a surface of the physical world that interests us because of its relationship with the beginning of film propaganda.

It is not a formula to be inspired by what artisans do, we have no interest in extracting artisanal knowledge. We very much accept the opportunity to exchange and the things that can happen between those two positions, ours and the artisans’, while we partake of the same experience.  However, we do not romanticise that exchange, and that’s why we feel and think it is necessary to refrain from the impulse of appropriation, so circumstances can begin to change.

The transposition occurs under very simple forms of relation with work. Our work is to make films, and we do not really think whether that is more or less artisanal than producing fabrics. And yet the two practices tell stories and agree with each other: we are workers as well, in the end. Sound and image are consequences of those communities, that is, they are part of them. Yet, they are not necessarily in sync. This is meaningful in terms of resisting exploiting image and sound. It comes up as an experimentation, an awareness of montage. We often refuse lip-sync or let it naturally be disturbed by the way a story is told or by the images that the story is connected to.

EFF: Your films relate collective stories and memories with individual ones. How do you navigate this duality and how do you relate these narratives to the place where they are located?

The voice, speech and presence of the desire of others in the films have been constant in the works of La Vulcanizadora. Even when there are moments of tension, we let ourselves be carried away by an unconscious force, something coming from behind the words. That force has a lot to do with the thinking of the territory, of “landscape” as an archive, with ways of understanding our own relationship with the territories that we have worked thoroughly. We don’t entertain any fantasy about us helping people to become better or contributing to their “progress”. Instead, we are exactly trying to get rid of the rhetoric around progress, established by transnational, global and national policies.

Place is always a key element, but by this we also mean the place of cinema. In other words, to think of the here and now in a specific cinema space, where the films are shown. That territory, which is ours as well, is the meeting place for our imagination and our projections. That place is also a landscape, and that is why we insist on fighting for these cinema spaces. We are part of this imagined community that wishes to connect with different communities too. We are not interested in embodying only narratives pertaining to extermination, obliteration, destruction of diversity. Filmmakers are a fighting community, and that is also spiritual militancy and a will for freedom. Many believe that certain struggles have been overcome and that they belong to a discussion of History. Those are precisely the stories we believe have to be decolonized because they are pillars of an economy of images that do not give respite.

Interview by Raquel Morais for Essay Film Festival, March 2022

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.