OUT OF ORDER, no use in case of confusion

...what happens when narratives no longer follow the causes and effects they are supposeto? In short, when the empty plate comes before eating the meal we can no longer extract meaningful conclusions on the level of conventional storytelling, thus a story becomes avehicle for something other. As we know, you can’t really come back to life in case you think you died too early, except in the theatre.

IN OR OUT OF ORDER or the rules of choreographic procedures. The performers aremoving in and out of the space, the films, the scenes, the female/male characters and in and out of stillness and movements. One can never be completely outside - moving out ofone territory means moving into another - like in the case of the outlaw. Even when you break the law you are still inscribed in the regulations as an exception to the rule.Running from the law becomes impossible and still it happens that the criminal gets away with the crime, because we lack the tools to reveal the strategies behind the escape. Theimpossible escape or the attempt of being outside law is never about arriving safe home, hideouts are only hideouts until they are know places. Once you are out you can alwaysonly be on the run.

OUT OF ORDERS can be understood as the relationship of power between thecontrolling and the controlled. The one with the gun, pointing and the one being pointed at, the one giving orders and the one obeying them, the director and the directed,manipulator and manipulated. Out of Order is about disturbing these features as fixed properties or positions that are not allowed to move. We are not the one or the other butboth at the same time, or one and then the other in shifting relations.

OUT OF ORDER is also what the note on a machine that no longer works says. Achoreographic machine that spits out stills, fragments, movements and sequences in wrong order. Going forward in one direction and backwards in another ending upelsewhere, travelling through different possibilities of the same. A situation reoccurs but never in the same way in order to create relations between the different possibilities of the same.

“A new status of narration follows from this: narration ceases to be truthful, that is toclaim to be true, and becomes fundamentally falsifying. This is not at all a case of “each has its own truth” but a variability of content. It is a power of the false which replacesand supersedes the form of the true, because it poses the simultaneity of incompossible presents, or the co-existence of not-necessarily true pasts.” (Deleuze Cinema 2)