Third Cinema

One of the topics that I found most interesting about third cinema was the ways that it presents alternative histories. Philip Rosen comments on this as specifically related to Ceddo. Twice in the film, characters have visions of alternate realities. First, there is the imagined scene of the Catholic mass. Next, when Dior's kidnapper is killed she has a vision of offering water to him. Rosen says that these examples are "cinematically coded as subjective." The audience knows that these events do not actually occur in the narrative of the film. However, Rosen also notes the final scene, where Dior kills the imam, signifying the unity of the old nobility and the ceddo. This event actually happens in the world of the film, so it is different than the imagined scenes. However, Rosen shows that this is another alternate version of history, because this unity of the nobility and ceddo is not something that happened in Senegalese history. In terms of revolutionary cinema, this "objective" change of history is more useful, because it is presented as a real event. It also promotes active viewership, because the audience is forced to remove themselves from the world of the film in order to see this ending as an alternate history.

The notion of the audience being active in the watching of a film was also intriguing. Solanas and Getino note how different mainstream cinema is from third or revolutionary cinema in terms of the viewers. When watching a mainstream film, the viewer is ultimately passive. In contrast, Solanas and Getino state that the act of simply attending the screening of a revolutionary film makes one active, because the viewer is there with full knowledge that his attendance is not condoned by the system. Because of this the audience of a revolutionary film is a political community, and the film will be the beginning of debate and potentially other revolutionary actions. As viewers of mostly mainstream cinema, is it possible for us to become active viewers, or is the act of watching mainstream films inherently passive?