RaMell Ross

You want to change the content of something? You can color in the person black. It's something I used to do. I do do for my art practice with Shel Silverstein poems. If you color in the person brown, it changes the context of the poem. The poem means something different. What is that? Black skin has a different history, right? Like we're drawing on a different thing.

And considering all of this violence, we ask on Black Bodies, quote unquote, do we need to see more? And then when you ask that question and you decide to not show it, you realize that there are just as many ways to not show it than to show it.

And considering all of this violence, we ask on Black Bodies, quote unquote, do we need to see more? And then when you ask that question and you decide to not show it, you realize that there are just as many ways to not show it than to show it.

And considering all of this violence, we ask on Black Bodies, quote unquote, do we need to see more? And then when you ask that question and you decide to not show it, you realize that there are just as many ways to not show it than to show it.

But the reason why it's shown is because it's sort of easy empathy and it's never really we've never been required or asked to explore the other imagination space. But I think even more so if you take point of view seriously, if you if you truly make the camera an organ, you ask, like, where is a person looking during these moments? Right. Like when I've had pain happen to my body.

But the reason why it's shown is because it's sort of easy empathy and it's never really we've never been required or asked to explore the other imagination space. But I think even more so if you take point of view seriously, if you if you truly make the camera an organ, you ask, like, where is a person looking during these moments? Right. Like when I've had pain happen to my body.

But the reason why it's shown is because it's sort of easy empathy and it's never really we've never been required or asked to explore the other imagination space. But I think even more so if you take point of view seriously, if you if you truly make the camera an organ, you ask, like, where is a person looking during these moments? Right. Like when I've had pain happen to my body.

I'm not looking at the wound itself, right? I glanced at it when it happened, but then I look away. I'm looking at the person's feet who was coming to help. I'm staring at a cloud or a leaf. I'm trying to cope and get through the moment. And we took that approach in writing. But I think to see someone go through those things is a type of voyeurism that's unique to cinema.

I'm not looking at the wound itself, right? I glanced at it when it happened, but then I look away. I'm looking at the person's feet who was coming to help. I'm staring at a cloud or a leaf. I'm trying to cope and get through the moment. And we took that approach in writing. But I think to see someone go through those things is a type of voyeurism that's unique to cinema.

I'm not looking at the wound itself, right? I glanced at it when it happened, but then I look away. I'm looking at the person's feet who was coming to help. I'm staring at a cloud or a leaf. I'm trying to cope and get through the moment. And we took that approach in writing. But I think to see someone go through those things is a type of voyeurism that's unique to cinema.

There's a voyeurism to being a human being, but I think that's unique to the reproduction of reality.

There's a voyeurism to being a human being, but I think that's unique to the reproduction of reality.

There's a voyeurism to being a human being, but I think that's unique to the reproduction of reality.

Yeah, it's like people need to see it to believe it. Like, did it happen? I didn't see it happen. Did it really happen? It's like cinema shows it to you so that you get a sense for the fact of it. The photograph, when it first came into existence, was a document at first. It was about fact. It was about fidelity. It was the closest thing to reality reproduction possible. And with that...

Yeah, it's like people need to see it to believe it. Like, did it happen? I didn't see it happen. Did it really happen? It's like cinema shows it to you so that you get a sense for the fact of it. The photograph, when it first came into existence, was a document at first. It was about fact. It was about fidelity. It was the closest thing to reality reproduction possible. And with that...

Yeah, it's like people need to see it to believe it. Like, did it happen? I didn't see it happen. Did it really happen? It's like cinema shows it to you so that you get a sense for the fact of it. The photograph, when it first came into existence, was a document at first. It was about fact. It was about fidelity. It was the closest thing to reality reproduction possible. And with that...

You know, it became a way to document movements. It became a way to prove it was evidence of suffering. It was evidence of culture. And with that evidentiary underpinnings of the image, it moves into cinema. And then we show it so that the audience has a true feel for its fact.

You know, it became a way to document movements. It became a way to prove it was evidence of suffering. It was evidence of culture. And with that evidentiary underpinnings of the image, it moves into cinema. And then we show it so that the audience has a true feel for its fact.

You know, it became a way to document movements. It became a way to prove it was evidence of suffering. It was evidence of culture. And with that evidentiary underpinnings of the image, it moves into cinema. And then we show it so that the audience has a true feel for its fact.

I think it's more to do with the way or what white audiences elevate to awards, per se, because it seems like it's more that, you know, 12 Years a Slave or this film gets there, and then why not another one?