Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication - Precarity and the Moving Image, Jun 2022

The aim of this article is to interrogate the use of US rural landscape in the 2020 film Nomadland and its account of contemporary precarity and poverty in the United States. I argue that while the film is ostensibly invested in locating alternative modes of living in the face of neo-liberal marginalization, it ultimately reaffirms neo-liberalism’s core tenet, individualism, through its fascination with what Kenneth Olwig calls the ‘scenic’ landscape. This approach to landscape understands nature as an unchanging ‘stage’ on which a nation’s history is played out and thus ultimately naturalizes nationalism. Thereby, the film reaffirms the myth of the ‘wide open spaces’ of American landscape which has historically been instrumental in the displacement of people excluded from US national identity on the basis of class and race. This can be contrasted with a more interactive, more inclusive approach to landscape which understands landscape as the result of interaction between a community and its environment. Recent US films such as Leave No Trace (2018) identify precisely such an interactive understanding as a basis for potential resistance against the forces of neo-liberalism which perpetuate precarity.

The COVID-19 pandemic disturbed the local film industry heavily since most of the film projects were delayed or cancelled. Despite the fragile situation, local filmmakers adopted flexible and adaptive strategies to survive. The flexible strategies related to fighting (the alternative jobs, project switch) and freezing (work from home). After three months, all film practitioners decided to fight for the new normal as they found job opportunities in social media content, corporate and government service, streaming platforms and film production. The screen industries supported the local filmmakers to survive. During the emergency period, the closed network was beneficial; nonetheless, they should expand their open network to adapt to a new normality. Apart from the resistance, filmmakers are continuously under precariousness, particularly about health threats and underpaid work.

The meeting of film and history sits at a position where it becomes hard to distinguish their interdependent dynamics. Accordingly, how do film and history connect, work with or work against each other? What is the significance of film for constructing histories of the people whose past, identity and culture were denied for long years? Where does this bring or drive film towards becoming a medium through which precarious politics on diverse people are revealed, documented and archived? Leaning on these, in this article, I will interrogate the position of transnational Kurdish cinema produced in Turkey for transforming the precarious political realms into a creative force that exposes different Kurdish histories, memories and temporalities. To do this I will make use of the interviews I conducted with Kurdish filmmakers in Turkey between 2010 and 2016, including Hüseyin Karabey, Mizgin Müjde Arslan, and Zeynel Doğan, and their films which reveal the tensions they inherit from their ancestors.

In this article, precariousness is understood as an intrinsic characteristic of a vast set of images – being them pictorial, sculptural, photographic, cinematographic, digital or other. These images acquire their specific value, most of the time, precisely as a function of this attribute. Precariousness is, in this case, not an insufficiency or a weakness, but a power, understood in different areas, from aesthetics to ontology. This article is divided into two parts: the first one explores, in various ways, the ephemerality–eternity polarity based on precariousness; the second one allows us to know the plural manifestations of the precariousness of the image in multiple forms of expression by identifying a range of arts and media nuclei. Invoking the contribution of different authors, from ancient to contemporary times, the article ends as it begins: it highlights the intrinsic precariousness of both forms of artistic creation and the modes of academic thinking.