Tradition: Johnny Pulp and the Lemonheads

The title bears a weight that a title is not usually asked to bear. To say 'good earth' is an old word. To say 'runs red' is a sudden word. The one evokes endurance and the work of hands. The other evokes what leaks into the work and makes it unworkable. The combination is not a shock because it comes after the fact, and the fact has already taken away surprise. There is no subtlety in the phrase and for that reason it is exact. It is the form in which a truth that cannot be argued presents itself to those who will not remain if they are not addressed in the first words they understand.Some will want to integrate the film into a wider history of representation and power. They will read each sentence for the trace of a plan. They will measure the rooms in which these reels were shown by the other meetings those rooms have hosted. They will be right to do so. Every appeal has a context that gives it force and takes some force away. Yet to keep only to this reading would be to abandon what happens in the time of the film. The time is not suffused by doctrine. It is held by the strictest modesty. There is a claim that must be honoured. There is a refusal that must be honoured at the same time. The claim is that the hurt exists, and that what can be given should be given. The refusal is that the hurt will not become the ground of a new certainty. These two together make the reel almost an impossible object. It works on us and it will not work for us. It leaves a trace and the trace is of something that does not belong to those who carry it away.The refusal takes another shape in the way the film denies the audience an ending. The end comes because the time has been used up. The end does not come because the work is done. The last shots do not promise that attention has produced a result that can be looked at with satisfaction. The bowl that moves down the row is not a conclusion. It is a continuation of looking in another form. The hands that reach are the same hands that were still when the face on the bed filled the screen. The same silence follows.

There is a custom in such a film to ask what will happen when the day ends. The custom expects an answer. Here the answer is not refused so much as displaced. The end is arriving all the time and cannot be gathered to a single instant for our benefit. A shot is held a second longer than a shot is usually held. A door is closed with the care one offers to a sleeping child even when the room is empty. A path by the river bears two sets of footprints that will be erased by the next hour of snow and wind. This is the film’s way of saying that nothing is solved and that nothing has been ignored. It has seen the end without taking it from us. It has seen the middle without pretending that the middle points like a finger toward any conclusion we can use.The poet speaks often. He speaks as one who knows that in a day like this speech will not transform anything and yet to remain silent would be to betray the day. He tells a story to a stranger with the need of a child. He tells the same story to his sons with the performance of a man who practised this very performance alone in a room for lack of another audience. The film refuses to rescue him from his words and refuses to rescue the words from him. It leaves him with the dignity that comes from being seen as he is. This is a hard gift and it is the only gift worth giving to a person who fears he has become a character in the lives of others. He wanted to command the last act. He is offered instead a view of himself standing in a lobby as if he had stumbled into a quiet stage while looking for somewhere warm to sit.The sons learn in tiny ways. Their learning is not knowledge. It is the slight weakening of a defence that once felt essential. They move a chair and do not ask anyone to notice. They follow their father outside and carry his pride back inside without scolding. They accept each other without admiring each other. If there is a future for them that the film will not show, it is contained in these gestures that cost them a little and give them nothing to display. The camera understands this economy and spends it without calculation. A look from a son would be sentimental if it lingered. It does not linger. It falls and then it is forgotten. The forgetting is a part of what is being learned. Not every observation must become an opinion in order to count.The women learn in a different key. Their learning is the practice of normal actions under the demand that normality not be permitted to dress itself as an achievement. They dress with care. They step into the lobby and endure the possibility of being seen by those who would like to name them. They return upstairs and find that the room belongs to them in a new way, not because they have won anything, but because they have accepted a kind of daylight that cannot be argued with. They allow themselves a brief comedy. They keep company with a silence that has shed a little of its fear. They are not cured. They are living. The film stands with them by staying close to the way time moves when bravery has no witness except a friend and a window.When the poet asks for a portrait he is asking that the day be marked by an image that will say a person passed this way without asking that the image defend him. The picture is taken. It will be looked at by others and by no one. The act of taking it confirms that the day had a body and a face. It will not save anything. It will make nothing worse. It is a decent act and the film treats it as such. The portrait will be a small object in a drawer in a house that will be sold. That is the right size for this wish. The film grants it.1 October 2025 at 12:03

A short work that gives itself this severity also gives itself to repetition. It is designed to be shown again and again, in rooms that will never be named, to listeners who will never be counted except as the sum required to heat those rooms and to pay the caretaker who locks up when all have gone. In repeating, the film places its spectators under the sign of a rite. The rite does not convert the event into a confidence that could hide the difficulty to come. It establishes a rhythm by which the hour can be held. In that rhythm, a city that might otherwise be too far away becomes a name one can bear for a moment. The bearing is not identification and it is not appropriation. It is an approach that stops short where it should stop. The stopping is part of the approach. The screen refuses the closeness that would replace what has happened with the comfort of imagination.There is a temptation to ask whether the sequence of modern scenes that opens the film is meant to flatter the viewer and to invite a resemblance that will soften the act of giving. Possibly this is so. Yet the movement from likeness to unlikeness is also the movement by which the distance that cannot be crossed is admitted without despair. One cannot live entirely in a realm of exception. One must have roads and shops and schools if only to understand that the ruins made by force are not a natural order. The opening is not a promise that the world is one. It is the registration of the minimum commonness by which the whole can be heard. The force that cancels that commonness appears without metaphors. It is said to be what it is. The camera records what it can and the commentary avoids any claim to speak for those who are not there to hear themselves spoken.The neutrality that holds the film together is not the neutrality of indifference. It is the neutrality that keeps a space where the subject can remain without being made into an example. The narration never climbs above the images. It stays just behind them and lets their order claim the room. In this way the film turns the ordinary constraint of a public projection into a discipline that protects the event from the viewer and the viewer from the event. Both are saved from the gesture that would convert an encounter into possession. The images do not open the past. They open the limit that the present keeps with it when it looks at what it cannot enclose.

The river is not a metaphor. It is a fact that passes alongside the hotel without asking to be included in this day. It is there to mark that continuity does not solve discontinuity. We are alive for a while and then we are not. The river does not change this. The snow helps us see the river by hiding it and by letting us imagine that movement continues even when it looks like it has been persuaded to rest. The camera returns to the bank and to the path by the water more than once. Each return is not a memory but a renewed admission. Here is what goes on. Here is what has no interest in being watched. The people in the hotel borrow a little of that indifference and carry it in their pockets like a useless token that keeps their hands from closing into fists.The poet is both dignified and foolish. He knows this. To know it does not prevent him from acting the fool with the certainty that his gestures deserve the status of ceremony. He asks for a portrait that will outlast him. He arranges his hair with a care that comes from a childhood where such care might have bought a little love. He scolds a son for not believing in his fear. He praises someone with too many words. He eats as if eating were a prayer against the fate he announces. None of these acts are large. They are the small labour of a man who would like to make the end arrive under a light that does not humiliate him. The film keeps faith with him by refusing to make him exemplary. He remains a person whose habits are equal to his thought. The two are indistinguishable and that is what saves him from becoming a symbol for anyone else.The sons carry a friendly hostility that has grown so accustomed to itself that it has begun to look like care. Each protects his place by mentioning it as if the mention could make it more secure. One lists the work he has done and the audiences that received it. The other lists his disappointments with the accuracy of a bureaucrat of the heart. Together they want their father to decide what ought never to have been left undecided. Which of them was loved in the right way and at the right time. The father cannot grant this and he does not try to pretend. He performs his failure with a touch of humour and with a small wish for grace that the film notes and does not weigh. They all go on being together in a manner that does not heal and does not wound further. It is enough for this day.The women move through a different weather, though they are in the same town and under the same snow. Their weather is the climate of deciding that a break has occurred and that the day must find room for kindness without a plan to be cured. They walk outside where the air stings, then hurry back to the heater whose noise protects their silence. They pose for a photograph with an air that is part teasing and part protection, as if the taking of a picture could seal an hour that might otherwise disperse. They talk about men as if men were the weather, capable of sudden changes and also capable of predictability that insults the seasons. They wait for nothing in particular and in that waiting we recognise the virtue that the film guards. They are not wasting time as failure. They are allowing time to be used up without mastery. That permission is an art.ooooooooooo

...it is easy enough to perceive a tradition running from the Free Spirit through the writings of Winstanley, Coppe, Sade, Fourier, Lautreamont, William Morris, Alfred Jarry, and on into Futurism and Dada - then via Surrealism into Lettrism, the various Situationist movements, Fluxus, “Mail Art”, Punk Rock, Neoism and contemporary anarchist cults.’ [13] He argues:‘If the term ‘art’ took on its modern meaning in the eighteenth century, then any opposition to it must date from this period - or later...Art has taken over the function of religion, not simply as the ultimate - and ultimately unknowable - form of knowledge, but also as the legitimized form of male emotionality. The ‘male’ artist is treated as a ‘genius’ for expressing feelings that are ‘traditionally’ considered ‘feminine.’ ‘He’ constructs a world in which the male is heroicised by displaying ‘female’ traits; and the female is reduced to an insipid subordinate role. ‘Bohemia’ is colonised by bourgeois men - a few of whom are ‘possessed’ by genius, the majority of whom are ‘eccentric.’ Bourgeois wimmin whose behavior resembles that of the ‘male genius’ are dismissed as being ‘hysterical’ - while proletarians of either sex who behave in such a manner are simply branded as ‘mental. Although its apologists claim ‘art’ is a universal category’, this simply isn’t true. Every survey of attendances at art galleries and museums demonstrates that an ‘appreciation’ of ‘art’ is something restricted almost exclusively to individuals belonging to higher income groups.’ [14] The tradition he lists becomes explicable in terms of these heretical views. For Milton , read Coppe, for Kant, Sade, and so on. And the vernacular, no-nonsense style is part of the story. He’ll cite ‘Distinction: A Social Critique Of The Judgement Of Taste’ by Pierre Bourdieu just to show he’s overqualified in making this observation. This is a working class voice that is cosmopolitan, clever and intellectually alert. Anyone who works in a comprehensive school knows about this state secret. This is a tradition he constructed in 1988, a year before Greil Marcus, the American cultural critic, published his ‘Lipstick Traces: a Secret History Of The Twentieth Century’[15], a book which covered much of the same ground. The difference between the two books is instructive. Not only did Home get there first but Home wrote a slimmer, more urgent and demystified outline than Marcus. Home’s was an anti-establishment tract working without any institutional academic backing. Marcus refused to review it even though he was asked to. The secrecy in his title becomes ironical once you realise that Marcus conspired to keep it so until he was ready to reveal it. Whereas Marcus’s book was out on a major American publishing house with good distribution and publicity organisation, Homes’ slimmer, more brutalising text was first published by ‘Aporia Press and Unpopular Books’. ‘Nuff said! It was unable to muster the same institutional support. Marcus’s review would have been welcome oxygen in a world where the good review is crucial to a book’s life. It didn’t happen. Not only that, but whereas Marcus’s book trembles with atmospherics , so that the experience is obscurantic, operatic and religious, Home goes at the avant-garde movements and groups with a fierce, defiant stylistic economy which allows no pity, no reverence. Marcus knows that what he’s writing about is ‘art’ and obscure genius. Why else would he be bothering with it? Home knows that its more important than that.

In another short sequence a poem appears as if it had been waiting behind branches for a person to come and hold out a hand. The text crosses the screen without ceremony and without claim to power. It is a light crossing, almost a mistake, the kind the world makes when it forgets it is supposed to behave like a world. The poem is not a key. It is a breath that says the day knows it is a day. It says that even when we are certain that words are not up to what has been given to them, they may still pass slowly through a frame and allow a smaller truth to stand where a larger one would fail. The film trusts this modesty and invites the viewer to trust it for the length of a line.Snow makes every space provisional. The ground is familiar and at the same time forbids our certainty. A bench is a bench until a thin layer settles and erases the edge that once made sitting obvious. A path becomes a suggestion, then it becomes a memory, then it becomes a doubt. The film makes use of this without pointing. It lets us walk with the people we are watching. We experience the small care required to place a foot and the small relief that follows, and then we are back inside, where walls pretend to own time and where coats hold the smell of the outside in a way that can be washed away only by the coming of another season. The river does not keep the smell. The river keeps nothing. The river receives and passes and offers an image of passing that is neither comfort nor threat.What of the role of chance? It moves through the hotel with the reserve of a person who has lived long enough to know that the greatest power is to choose not to impose. Chance allows a meeting and then calls it back. Chance makes a glance available and then closes the door with the softest click. A room number is misread and a delay occurs that saves nothing and spoils nothing and yet makes possible a small exchange later that will be remembered as something that might not have happened. The film’s faith in chance is the same as its faith in discretion. It places them on the same shelf and asks the viewer to see that what matters is neither control nor surrender. What matters is the attention that permits both to pass without being turned into proof.1 October 2025 at 20:12

To say that a film changes a day is to give it more agency than it wants. It is more accurate to say that the day lets itself be altered when a reel like this intrudes. The workday stops. The evening’s plan is broken. The errand takes a detour that ends in a hall where the chairs remember worse lectures. Because rooms are where all these things happen. The interruption is the substance. The fact of having ceased to be always for oneself is the small event that has occasioned the projection. No one can know whether this interruption persists beyond the walk home. No one can know whether the hand that opens the door to the kitchen will still carry what the eye could barely keep in place. It is enough that for a time the possible has been given room. The possible is not redemption or understanding. It is the thinness in our ordinary claims. It gives us back the humility that does not have a face.The authority of this little film comes from its renunciation. It could have sought to surpass itself with words that leave no remainder. It could have offered examples that make the mind secure in the belief that the stilled body has been honoured by a narrative that places it in order. Instead it has chosen to be a messenger of the smallest range. It carries only the notice that must be carried. It carries the notice that an event cannot be domesticated and that the right form for response is the unpretending act that passes from one hand to another. To be a bearer of so little is to be accused of weakness. But the weakness keeps safe the ungraspable centre of what has been recorded.There is a sense in which the film is not about the past at all. The past is present here only as the force that refuses to give us the present back. We watch what has happened and are made to feel that happening does not stay put. It spreads into hours that did not cause it and into rooms that could never contain it. That is why those who leave the screening with a plan to discuss the politics of the message often speak too loudly and with too much satisfaction in their conclusions. The right tone is lower. The right conclusion is disgust with conclusions. In that refusal the experience will not be resolved and yet it will not fade. It will remain as the background to minor thought, you might say like a dull weather in the head that keeps one honest.There are in the film two kinds of distance. There is the distance of geography and time, which is the excuse people often give to themselves for inaction. There is the distance of experience, which is not an excuse but a fact. The first can be crossed by money, by ships, by the coordinated efforts of organisations and by memory. The second cannot be crossed. The film never pretends to cross it. It asks that the first be traversed in the full knowledge that the second will remain. This is not a tragedy. It is what keeps the other as other. When the other is preserved in this way, the act that comes from seeing avoids becoming a project of appropriation. It remains humble, often clumsy, seldom sufficient. In that form it is the only act that answers to what the screen has demanded.ooooooooooo

A film appears and yields itself to a kind of waiting that is older than waiting for knowledge. The screen receives what it has been made to receive. A voice speaks in the manner of an announcement that pretends to have no centre. Faces come forward and withdraw. The world outside is held back for the length of a reel. What is shown is not a story that takes us in hand and leads us toward a proof. It is a sequence of certainties that already know their end and for that reason cannot end. One sees a city that could be any city because it is a city that has already been emptied of assurance. One sees rooms that are rooms for the sick, and the beds give the measure that cannot be measured. The beds are all the same and so the bodies must be singular. The film was made to ask for help and it makes its request with the artlessness of a bell. The bell does not move and the air is moved for it. Sound spreads. The empty space is where the demand takes shape.What is a film that wants only to be useful? The answer it gives is that usefulness in this unquiet form lies in the refusal to turn pain into a theme. The images retain the clarity of things that have not been interpreted yet are already beyond interpretation. Streets run in straight lines and carry the mark of an order that has been overpassed by the event that carries no order. The camera looks without becoming a witness in the strong sense. The narration says what is there and is careful not to say more. The spareness is not an aesthetic choice. It is a condition. Speech has entered the region where it cannot bring back what the eyes meet and yet it continues because the continuation is the last duty.This region is not the region of silence alone. It is not made by the absence of sound. It is made by the pressure of what will not let language finish. The voice describes schools and factories and ships. It names progress because progress is the figure by which we recognise ourselves. Then the voice turns and in the turn something like air goes out of the room. The city that was described as industrious becomes a place where the industrious are patients and the measure of productivity becomes the number of bandages and the litres of boiled water. We are asked to remain. We are asked to sit where we are and to follow what can be said to the edge of what cannot. In that small obedience the audience comes into relation with one another and with those who do not know these strangers exist. This is a community that does not have a name, and because it does not have a name it does not seek to remain. It is present for a time that refuses to be possessed.

What is shown of bodies is not the body as a ground for meaning. The film does not tell us who these people were before they were placed in beds. It does not tell us what they believed, what they expected from the day that had begun as a day with errands and small talk. The camera does not remove the blanket to teach the viewer a lesson. It leaves a blanket where a blanket is needed and becomes exact at the level of the face. The face is sometimes still. Sometimes it moves in a way that cannot be read except as movement. The narrative names the forms of harm, and the names are brief and historical. Words that would normally form a sequence are now given in a list. The list is the refusal of a tale. It collects and counts and finds that counting cannot do more than point. The pointing is enough, not because enough has been said, but because the film is the kind of object that knows it must end before the subject is finished.The appeal that follows will strike some as a trade. Give attention, receive a claim on your purse. Yet what happens in the room cannot be reduced to the exchange. The film imposes a use that exceeds use. For a little while the spectators are delivered to the time of others. It is not the time of empathy in the sentimental sense. It is the time that exposes the viewer to the truth that nothing offered will be returned as knowledge. One is not enriched by having seen. One discovers that seeing is the form of impoverishment that corresponds to the thing seen. The reel passes. The facts as facts are retained for a time and then they falter. What remains is a moment of common exposure that will not be claimed as anyone’s achievement. The money in the bowl is a figure of this loss that arrives as a necessary act. It leaves the hand and it does not return. It leaves the hand in company, which is the condition that allows the loss to be borne.There is a problem that presents itself whenever a body is used to call another body to action at a distance. The problem is the temptation to make an image serve the end of a new self knowledge. The film resists this by keeping its grammar unadorned. It does not invite the viewer to be the one who understands. It invites the viewer to be the one who does not flee from the plainness of what has been shown. The actors here are unnamed because their only role is the role they did not choose. In that role they resist being taken into the story of the audience. The audience does not become good by having looked. The audience is given a chance to let the time of looking carry them forward to an act that is simple and cannot elevate them. A stranger requires this. The film is the messenger that does not add a word to the message.A short work that gives itself this severity also gives itself to repetition. It is designed to be shown again and again, in rooms that will never be named, to listeners who will never be counted except as the sum required to heat those rooms and to pay the caretaker who locks up when all have gone. In repeating, the film places its spectators under the sign of a rite. The rite does not convert the event into a confidence that could hide the difficulty to come. It establishes a rhythm by which the hour can be held. In that rhythm, a city that might otherwise be too far away becomes a name one can bear for a moment. The bearing is not identification and it is not appropriation. It is an approach that stops short where it should stop. The stopping is part of the approach. The screen refuses the closeness that would replace what has happened with the comfort of imagination.

The refusal takes another shape in the way the film denies the audience an ending. The end comes because the time has been used up. The end does not come because the work is done. The last shots do not promise that attention has produced a result that can be looked at with satisfaction. The bowl that moves down the row is not a conclusion. It is a continuation of looking in another form. The hands that reach are the same hands that were still when the face on the bed filled the screen. The same silence follows. There is in the film a light that has nothing to do with technique. It is the light that makes a face visible when the face does not desire an audience. The look given to the camera is less a look than a condition. It is the look of a person whose look must pass through the demand of another. The demand is not chosen and so the look has the absolute contact of what an appeal is when nothing else can be offered. The director here is not a personality. It is the border that a machine makes when it frames. We often think that framing is the first decision of art. Here it is the last patience of necessity. There are only these edges. The rest of the world has not been denied. It is absent because absence is the world’s current state.Often in such works the commentary will reach for a sentence that can bind the disparate images to a cause. The cause settles nerves and lets the spectator doubt less. Here the voice does not attempt such a settlement. It names the offices of relief, names the need, names the acts that can follow from the seeing we have done. It stops short of naming why we should be proud to have been present. This shortness is not a lack of skill. It is a respect. The room becomes a place where respect touches the boundary of ignorance and remains there. One is not educated here. One is called to a form of endurance that holds the call itself without ornament.The film was made to travel, yet in every place the experience would be the same experience under a different ceiling. A few seats would be repaired with tape. There would be a draught that could not be stopped. The projector would falter once and the operator would shake his head in a theatrical regret that would return each time the bulb threatened to fail. People would cough because people cough when they do not know where to put their hands. In this scene the work gains its truth. It is not the fact of a single screening that matters. It is the multiplication of a patience that refuses to announce itself. It is the way these small inconveniences open to what is not a metaphor. The discomfort here is not a symbol of the hurt there. It is only a reminder that a life without interruptions is not the life into which this film has come.There is always a question in such undertakings about the lawfulness of looking. What has one been given the right to see in order to be moved? The film answers by keeping the right to a minimum. It does not claim a special permission. It does not claim that the audience and the sufferers share a secret. It permits only this simple contact. You are here and they are there and the distance is a fact. This fact does not end the matter. It begins it and the only form of continuation that does not trespass is the act of giving that does not pretend to be an act of comprehension. There are kinds of knowledge that can follow, and they are not forbidden. But they must follow and not precede the acceptance that the first requirement is to do nothing with the images except keep faith with them long enough to let them change a small part of our day.ooooooooooo

There is in the film a light that has nothing to do with technique. It is the light that makes a face visible when the face does not desire an audience. The look given to the camera is less a look than a condition. It is the look of a person whose look must pass through the demand of another. The demand is not chosen and so the look has the absolute contact of what an appeal is when nothing else can be offered. The director here is not a personality. It is the border that a machine makes when it frames. We often think that framing is the first decision of art. Here it is the last patience of necessity. There are only these edges. The rest of the world has not been denied. It is absent because absence is the world’s current state.Often in such works the commentary will reach for a sentence that can bind the disparate images to a cause. The cause settles nerves and lets the spectator doubt less. Here the voice does not attempt such a settlement. It names the offices of relief, names the need, names the acts that can follow from the seeing we have done. It stops short of naming why we should be proud to have been present. This shortness is not a lack of skill. It is a respect. The room becomes a place where respect touches the boundary of ignorance and remains there. One is not educated here. One is called to a form of endurance that holds the call itself without ornament.The film was made to travel, yet in every place the experience would be the same experience under a different ceiling. A few seats would be repaired with tape. There would be a draught that could not be stopped. The projector would falter once and the operator would shake his head in a theatrical regret that would return each time the bulb threatened to fail. People would cough because people cough when they do not know where to put their hands. In this scene the work gains its truth. It is not the fact of a single screening that matters. It is the multiplication of a patience that refuses to announce itself. It is the way these small inconveniences open to what is not a metaphor. The discomfort here is not a symbol of the hurt there. It is only a reminder that a life without interruptions is not the life into which this film has come.

There is liquor, and it loosens talk without rewarding it. There is food, and it is eaten as if eating were an excuse to occupy the mouth with something other than words. There are cigarettes that mark the time with their thin columns of smoke that look like proposals for sentences that choose to dissipate before they can harden into assertions. These are the ordinary materials of this director’s rooms. Here they take on the feel of things that have at last been accepted as ordinary. A lighter does not stand for fate. A scarf does not stand for guilt. They are what they are, and because the film keeps them there, the people in the frame are permitted to be what they are without being made to perform their meanings.The film does not decide for us whether the poet will die soon. It places the fear beside the day and lets their relation find its own composure. The fear is not the enemy. The day is not the refuge. They are companions that agree to share a table without speaking. The sons leave and the women leave and we leave. The hotel remains for the next set of arrivals who will bring their own hours and their own restraint. The river continues with a softness that can seem like indifference until we remember that softness is often the only strength left when everything that claims to be strong has shown itself to be merely loud.A few more scenes deserve mention because they carry the weight of what the film would like us to learn without saying it. A man chooses not to enter a room where he has been invited. He stands outside and allows hesitation to protect a dignity that could not afford the touch of another failure. A woman receives a small kindness from a stranger and refuses to make it larger than it is. A walk is taken past a view that should be admired and is not, because admiration would deny the day its right to remain unremarkable. A telephone rings and rings because no one wishes to become the person who answers. A word is mistranslated by the heart into a permission that was not granted, and the correction is gentle, and the face that made the error does not redden. Each of these allows the film to continue to honour the quiet that it has chosen as its element.In the end there is no end except the ordinary end of light and the ordinary end of a reel. The snow is still falling when we stop looking. The images remain behind as if the room had absorbed them and would give them back later in another order that we cannot predict. We do not know whether we have learned anything. It is better that we do not know. The fear of death has been present and has not ridiculed itself. The friendship between women has been present and has not turned itself into a banner. The uneasy love of sons and a father has been kept intact without the reassurance of reform. The hotel has remained a shelter without becoming a sanctuary. The river has remained a river.1 October 2025 at 20:21

There is a temptation to ask whether the sequence of modern scenes that opens the film is meant to flatter the viewer and to invite a resemblance that will soften the act of giving. Possibly this is so. Yet the movement from likeness to unlikeness is also the movement by which the distance that cannot be crossed is admitted without despair. One cannot live entirely in a realm of exception. One must have roads and shops and schools if only to understand that the ruins made by force are not a natural order. The opening is not a promise that the world is one. It is the registration of the minimum commonness by which the whole can be heard. The force that cancels that commonness appears without metaphors. It is said to be what it is. The camera records what it can and the commentary avoids any claim to speak for those who are not there to hear themselves spoken.The neutrality that holds the film together is not the neutrality of indifference. It is the neutrality that keeps a space where the subject can remain without being made into an example. The narration never climbs above the images. It stays just behind them and lets their order claim the room. In this way the film turns the ordinary constraint of a public projection into a discipline that protects the event from the viewer and the viewer from the event. Both are saved from the gesture that would convert an encounter into possession. The images do not open the past. They open the limit that the present keeps with it when it looks at what it cannot enclose.The title bears a weight that a title is not usually asked to bear. To say 'good earth' is an old word. To say 'runs red' is a sudden word. The one evokes endurance and the work of hands. The other evokes what leaks into the work and makes it unworkable. The combination is not a shock because it comes after the fact, and the fact has already taken away surprise. There is no subtlety in the phrase and for that reason it is exact. It is the form in which a truth that cannot be argued presents itself to those who will not remain if they are not addressed in the first words they understand.Some will want to integrate the film into a wider history of representation and power. They will read each sentence for the trace of a plan. They will measure the rooms in which these reels were shown by the other meetings those rooms have hosted. They will be right to do so. Every appeal has a context that gives it force and takes some force away. Yet to keep only to this reading would be to abandon what happens in the time of the film. The time is not suffused by doctrine. It is held by the strictest modesty. There is a claim that must be honoured. There is a refusal that must be honoured at the same time. The claim is that the hurt exists, and that what can be given should be given. The refusal is that the hurt will not become the ground of a new certainty. These two together make the reel almost an impossible object. It works on us and it will not work for us. It leaves a trace and the trace is of something that does not belong to those who carry it away.

The notion that a piece of propaganda could be gentle will bother those who imagine that persuasion must reduce what it touches. Here persuasion takes the shape of restraint. The persuasion lies in not pushing. It lies in letting what is visible be the instrument of its own effect. That this was arranged by a committee, that it was fitted into evenings that had schedules and hosts and donors, does not undo the fact that the film conducts itself as if it had been asked to speak only once and to do so without flourish. It does not wish to survive itself as an object of admiration. It wishes to disappear into the help it collects. If we remember it, it is because we fail to achieve this wish and perhaps we should fail. To forget would be to imagine that the gesture has been completed. To remember is to know that the slight sense of failure is the safeguard of our attention.The screen darkens and the noise of the projector goes on as if the images were still there. People do not speak at first because they do not know what it would be to speak. They do not speak because they are listening to the machine surrender its last useless rotations. The operator kills the light and with the same small movement he calls the room back to itself. The call is secular and yet something like a benediction hangs in the air that no one would think to name. Coins are persuasive in such moments precisely because they do not aspire to beauty. They clink and they have weight, and afterwards one carries the absence of them as a pocket unexpectedly light. The lightness is a sign and not a proof. The film has made itself a passing presence and has departed. It has left behind something that will not announce itself and will nevertheless act.In the end the work has the innocence of an object that knows it is not enough. The honesty is severe because it refuses to be made into a miracle. It asks nothing for itself. It asks only for that which will go beyond it toward those who will never think of the audience that sat and watched. It is right that there should be no memory in the places where help arrives of the rooms where the help was raised. It is right that the film should be forgotten by those who do not need it. For those who watched, forgetting is never complete. A name returns. A corridor under harsh lights returns. A hand that lay on a sheet, neither extended nor clenched, returns. These do not call for tears. They call for the care that can neither boast nor despair, the only care we are equal to when we have looked and found no comfort.ooooooooooo

A winter film. The screen turns white and grey. Snow falls without hurry and the river continues beneath the stillness that pretends to hold it. A hotel receives a few guests who have not yet decided to be guests. A poet has taken a room because he feels a summons from an end that does not announce itself except as a rumour of breath. He asks his sons to come. Nearby two women shelter in another room. They drink coffee that cools too fast because the window lets the outside cross a threshold they needed to hold firm. A day is given to them and to us. The day is not an argument. It is a duration that will not belong to anyone when it is over.What happens is almost nothing. The poet waits for his sons and yet does not wait well. The sons arrive and remember old wounds with the lightness of people who cannot help increasing the weight by speaking of it. The women tend a large tiredness. The hotel has corridors that lead to rooms that lead to corridors again. There are small tables and a lobby where people pretend that passing each other does not matter. The snow keeps falling and the river keeps going. This is not description in the usual sense. It is a kind of exposure. The camera places chairs and coats where speech will decide whether to begin. The black and white draws colour out of the world so that the least movement is a statement that cannot be withdrawn.The poet believes that death is near. No one tells him this. He tells it to himself and then tells it to others as if the telling were the event. He asks his sons to come to him because he wishes to place himself within their looking while he can still choose where to sit. They come, and once they are there, everything that could have been said becomes a long path that arrives only at small hesitations. They offer praise and they offer complaint. They speak of success and of lack. The father gives them presents that disappoint them because no object can set right an old imbalance that has learned how to live inside the body without being noticed until the moment of a gift. None of this is dramatic in the usual way. It has the mild force of family talk that goes on because to stop would be to allow silence to say more than anyone wishes to hear.In another room two women share a retreat that is not entirely safe because the world sits in the lobby and because the world knows their faces. One of them has been wounded in a private quarrel that has left a trace on her skin. Both carry a different mark that cannot be seen but is present in the way they hold their cups and in the way they stand too close to the window and then step back. They do not come to the hotel to be seen. They come in order not to be seen, which means the camera must learn how to attend without entering. It sits still and permits the room to breathe. The talk between them is almost idle, almost comic, almost severe. The three almosts are the truth of their friendship. They do not found anything. They keep each other company and guard a small unworked space in which shame cannot organise a law.ooooooooooo

The hotel offers a fragile public space where these two tracks can cross. A corridor joins them. A door opens and closes. A request for an autograph becomes an interruption that both parties will forget and remember at the same time. A car in the car park waits longer than a car wishes to wait and becomes a place where a stranger might be seen and might be helped without anyone announcing that help has been given. The lobby clerk knows enough to say nothing. The coffee is bitter and a little weak and therefore suited to a day that refuses to concentrate its taste. The world is present here only as what must be kept away in order for the thin relations of the day to remain themselves. This is not isolation. It is a modest insistence that a certain lightness is required if we are to remain close without owning one another.The film does not move quickly and it does not move slowly. It moves with the rhythm of people who do not want to decide what the hour means and who therefore make their way between chairs and along paths at the pace of thought that has no object and yet feels the pressure to remain faithful to what it cannot name. The camera watches from a distance that is not indifferent. It is the distance of respect that allows embarrassment to pass through the frame without being turned into humiliation. A silence appears and is not filled because to fill it would be to give it a purpose that would shorten it and make it false. The silence does not sting. It is a winter air that you breathe carefully because the temperature will make the lungs remember that they are organs and not only metaphors.Because the film gives itself a single day, it can repeat without losing patience. Repetition here is not a pattern for the sake of pattern. It is the admission that we live by return and that the small differences between returns are where meaning collects like frost along a window frame. The sons go out and come back. The women go out and come back. The father sleeps and wakes and then dozes in a chair because the bed has finally refused to bear him as a stage. Each return is real. The talk gains nothing and refuses nothing. The faces change as little as faces ever change in one day. We learn how to look so that the smallest tremor becomes an event. A smile has been forced and now it is not being forced. A cup is held a fraction longer than before and now it is set down with the care of a small offering. A coat is put on and does not help. A coat is taken off and does not help. The river continues.There is a kind of comic grace that moves through the rooms like a house spirit that has learned to be kind precisely because its jokes are too gentle to protect anyone from pain. A name is misremembered. A gift is not quite appropriate and the mistake becomes a charm. A person thanks another for a favour that was not meant as a favour and a new ease arrives for a moment before pride returns to keep everyone safe. These moments do not gather into a catharsis. They are the relief by which a day can go on without turning bitter. The camera records them with the same attention it gives to the heavy admissions, because it knows the admissions would sour without these brief admissions of laughter.1 October 2025 at 11:56

What the film asks of us is almost nothing and therefore it is difficult. It asks that we let a day be spent in our presence without our claim upon it. It asks that we be available to a kind of contact that does not announce itself as contact. It asks that we own nothing that occurs and that we be willing to let our attention be a form of giving that does not return to us as knowledge or as pride. It is a lesson that cannot be taught. It is a practice that can be kept. The film keeps it for the time it runs. We are invited to keep it a little longer as we put on our coats and step out into a winter that does not care what we have seen. We breathe and our breath appears and then vanishes. We recall a phrase from the lobby or from the river path and then it vanishes. We are left with the mild sense that what is best in us is what had no plan in that hour. We are left with the knowledge that this is enough.What the film asks of us is almost nothing and therefore it is difficult. It asks that we let a day be spent in our presence without our claim upon it. It asks that we be available to a kind of contact that does not announce itself as contact. It asks that we own nothing that occurs and that we be willing to let our attention be a form of giving that does not return to us as knowledge or as pride. It is a lesson that cannot be taught. It is a practice that can be kept. The film keeps it for the time it runs. We are invited to keep it a little longer as we put on our coats and step out into a winter that does not care what we have seen. We breathe and our breath appears and then vanishes. We recall a phrase from the lobby or from the river path and then it vanishes. We are left with the mild sense that what is best in us is what had no plan in that hour. We are left with the knowledge that this is enough.

There is a sense in which the film is not about the past at all. The past is present here only as the force that refuses to give us the present back. We watch what has happened and are made to feel that happening does not stay put. It spreads into hours that did not cause it and into rooms that could never contain it. That is why those who leave the screening with a plan to discuss the politics of the message often speak too loudly and with too much satisfaction in their conclusions. The right tone is lower. The right conclusion is disgust with conclusions. In that refusal the experience will not be resolved and yet it will not fade. It will remain as the background to minor thought, you might say like a dull weather in the head that keeps one honest.There are in the film two kinds of distance. There is the distance of geography and time, which is the excuse people often give to themselves for inaction. There is the distance of experience, which is not an excuse but a fact. The first can be crossed by money, by ships, by the coordinated efforts of organisations and by memory. The second cannot be crossed. The film never pretends to cross it. It asks that the first be traversed in the full knowledge that the second will remain. This is not a tragedy. It is what keeps the other as other. When the other is preserved in this way, the act that comes from seeing avoids becoming a project of appropriation. It remains humble, often clumsy, seldom sufficient. In that form it is the only act that answers to what the screen has demanded.The notion that a piece of propaganda could be gentle will bother those who imagine that persuasion must reduce what it touches. Here persuasion takes the shape of restraint. The persuasion lies in not pushing. It lies in letting what is visible be the instrument of its own effect. That this was arranged by a committee, that it was fitted into evenings that had schedules and hosts and donors, does not undo the fact that the film conducts itself as if it had been asked to speak only once and to do so without flourish. It does not wish to survive itself as an object of admiration. It wishes to disappear into the help it collects. If we remember it, it is because we fail to achieve this wish and perhaps we should fail. To forget would be to imagine that the gesture has been completed. To remember is to know that the slight sense of failure is the safeguard of our attention.

There is always a question in such undertakings about the lawfulness of looking. What has one been given the right to see in order to be moved? The film answers by keeping the right to a minimum. It does not claim a special permission. It does not claim that the audience and the sufferers share a secret. It permits only this simple contact. You are here and they are there and the distance is a fact. This fact does not end the matter. It begins it and the only form of continuation that does not trespass is the act of giving that does not pretend to be an act of comprehension. There are kinds of knowledge that can follow, and they are not forbidden. But they must follow and not precede the acceptance that the first requirement is to do nothing with the images except keep faith with them long enough to let them change a small part of our day.To say that a film changes a day is to give it more agency than it wants. It is more accurate to say that the day lets itself be altered when a reel like this intrudes. The workday stops. The evening’s plan is broken. The errand takes a detour that ends in a hall where the chairs remember worse lectures. Because rooms are where all these things happen. The interruption is the substance. The fact of having ceased to be always for oneself is the small event that has occasioned the projection. No one can know whether this interruption persists beyond the walk home. No one can know whether the hand that opens the door to the kitchen will still carry what the eye could barely keep in place. It is enough that for a time the possible has been given room. The possible is not redemption or understanding. It is the thinness in our ordinary claims. It gives us back the humility that does not have a face.The authority of this little film comes from its renunciation. It could have sought to surpass itself with words that leave no remainder. It could have offered examples that make the mind secure in the belief that the stilled body has been honoured by a narrative that places it in order. Instead it has chosen to be a messenger of the smallest range. It carries only the notice that must be carried. It carries the notice that an event cannot be domesticated and that the right form for response is the unpretending act that passes from one hand to another. To be a bearer of so little is to be accused of weakness. But the weakness keeps safe the ungraspable centre of what has been recorded.

The screen darkens and the noise of the projector goes on as if the images were still there. People do not speak at first because they do not know what it would be to speak. They do not speak because they are listening to the machine surrender its last useless rotations. The operator kills the light and with the same small movement he calls the room back to itself. The call is secular and yet something like a benediction hangs in the air that no one would think to name. Coins are persuasive in such moments precisely because they do not aspire to beauty. They clink and they have weight, and afterwards one carries the absence of them as a pocket unexpectedly light. The lightness is a sign and not a proof. The film has made itself a passing presence and has departed. It has left behind something that will not announce itself and will nevertheless act.In the end the work has the innocence of an object that knows it is not enough. The honesty is severe because it refuses to be made into a miracle. It asks nothing for itself. It asks only for that which will go beyond it toward those who will never think of the audience that sat and watched. It is right that there should be no memory in the places where help arrives of the rooms where the help was raised. It is right that the film should be forgotten by those who do not need it. For those who watched, forgetting is never complete. A name returns. A corridor under harsh lights returns. A hand that lay on a sheet, neither extended nor clenched, returns. These do not call for tears. They call for the care that can neither boast nor despair, the only care we are equal to when we have looked and found no comfort.