Q&A: Ojoboca

Roger: A lot of people outside of the experimental film world assume that celluloid filmmaking—real film!—has gone the way of the dinosaurs. Of course, hidden (Underground? At the margins?) is a really rich scene of filmmakers who continue to work in small-gauge film—16mm and super 8mm mostly. I know you’re currently in Mexico City at a meeting of artist-run film labs from around the world. Can you talk a little bit about what specifically attracts you to working with photochemical film in an era where video has become omnipresent?

Ojoboca: First of all, it has to do with the fact that we are working with a physical medium. Because of its materiality, it enables a process of working—from shooting, to developing, to printing and finally projecting—that requires us to be physically engaged at every stage. This process leads to a corporeal relationship where our bodies engage with the body of the film. This type of relationship forces us to make images in a different way and to think about them differently as well. Because of the investment in time and effort this relationship demands, there is an intimacy that results from it that is fulfilling to us in a way that digital images are not.

Secondly, when these photochemical images are shown through analog projection, that is, actually putting light through the body of the film, we feel that the intimacy we experienced while making it gets transferred in some manner to the viewers and there is real possibility for communion between the people that are sharing the space. Perhaps this is also possible using only digital means but we have never experienced it, so to reach the ends that we’re seeking, we stick to the means that we know work for us.

R: I’ve written about my interest in the movie theater as a special place for experiencing film—the kind of attention an audience brings, the way the distractions of the world disappear for a brief moment. But I know that some of the forms of expanded cinema that I’m interested in actually run into problems with the form of the theater too, where the fixed seating, for example, can prevent certain forms of interaction. I know that one of the films you proposed to show required a screen in the middle of the room rather than in the front of it, which obviously isn’t possible in a regular screening room.  Can you talk about your relationship to the movie theater as a space, both in terms of what it provides and what it prevents?

O: Generally the movie theater is the best place for us to project our single projector films. Because we prefer to show our films as physical film prints, the movie theater is the optimal setting since for a long time it was the traditional space for viewing photochemical film. The theaters that have maintained the technical capability to do that are usually ideal for our work. Of course, not so many remain and many contemporary movie theaters designed for digital exhibition can be quite hostile to our films. So generally, we are happy with a room that is pitch black and projection equipment that is clean and cared for.

When it comes to the expanded cinema works we have tried to be flexible. We have performed in all kinds of spaces including many movie theaters. Darkness is key and usually if the host is accommodating we can make almost any space work. Recently, we have made a few works that need a different kind of space or a different positioning of the audience, projector and screen. For example the work that you mentioned where we project from both sides onto a screen placed in the middle of the room. This work requires the audience to move around the screen in order to experience the work fully.

This came about from wanting to see what would happen when the viewer is asked to stand and move around as opposed to sitting still. And we wanted to maintain a degree of attention similar to what you would get from sitting down. But the last time we did this performance we didn’t state clearly that people should move around, so they chose to sit or stand still on one side. We realized that we really had to work against normal viewing habits.  So we’re still trying to figure out how we can do this and what other possibilities there are with alternative configurations.

Watch: Ojoboca at the 2018 (S8) Mostra de Cinema Periférico in A Coruña, Spain.

R: You’ve worked in both traditional single-image/single-projector films and expanded cinema/multi-projector performance. What do expanded forms allow you to do that you’re not able to do with a single image? Is your practice moving more toward multi-projector performance or do you imagine maintaining a balance between these two ways of working and of presenting your work?

O: They’re different forms and so far we’re happy to work with both. The expanded works are more immediate. The live element in the performances changes the energy in the room and it alters the level of attention, for us and for the audience. The transformation takes place in the moment of projection and it feels like we are all experiencing something that can only exist in the present time.

The single projector films, on the other hand, seem more like a reproduction of a past moment. They are more solid in the sense that their form is fixed. They are the record of a past transformation. So when we put together a program where we show films together with performance, it allows us to play with different experiences of time. This is something that interests us. It allows is to combine different forms of perceiving time into one experience. So finding a balance between these two types of works within single programs has been one path we’ve explored.

We’re also happy presenting films or performances by themselves in festivals or within other programs. In practical terms sometimes it’s easier to send a film print somewhere far away. But we prefer a situation where we can be present and have more control over how the different elements combine into one experience.

More info on Ojoboca is available on their website.