Thirty-six frames of resistance

In an age of infinite, weightless images, a professor reflects on what we lose when nothing costs us anything—and why slowness, friction, and choice may be the last proofs that we exist.

At fifteen, I loaded a roll of film into my Yashica for the first time. The weight of the metal pressed against the softness of my palm, and I remember the ritualistic click of the canister settling into place. The sound faded quickly—the small sound of a door closing.

I had thirty-six frames. Thirty-six memories to immortalise. It was an act of preservation; what I chose to save, and what time swallowed. Back then, I pointed it towards anything—the light filtering between the trees, the emptiness between two tall buildings, the skyline mellowed by grey clouds.

I held a frame in my eye and looked into the future; I wondered, would it matter to look back? Then, almost absent-mindedly, I waited for weeks to reveal what I had sought. In the pause, anticipation filled my days: a yearning to return, to adjust the angle, to hold on to the final image. All I knew was this: it was mine to keep.

I would wait, for days on end, and think—I wish there were another way.

The screen of my iPhone camera glares brighter than the sun. The colours are saturated, loud, and artificial— eerily close to something real. Often, without intention, I produce hundreds of images a month that I will never look at again, stored in a cloud somewhere, flattened into a grid of thumbnails that I scroll past without ceremony.

I admit it is convenient. The stench of developer fluid does not linger. My memories aren’t divided by thirty-six.

This innovation promises efficiency. It promises perfection. The light is corrected, the frame adjusted, and the flaws quietly erased. There is a version of the film camera for each of us. Quietly and efficiently, the internet has taken from us without ever asking permission. The digital demolition is a great flattening. No photograph costs anything to take, which means no photograph costs you anything.

Every experience can be shared in real time, which means the living of it and the performance of it have collapsed into a single, hollow gesture.

This is not new. The internet is increasingly curated, manufactured, and unreal. We’re tourists in a strange city, burdened by the grief of abundance without any weight.

Our attention has become currency—shaped, directed, and held a moment longer than we intend.

We have been nudged, over time, to fill every silence. To reach for our phones at every lull in the conversation. It takes something quieter from us: our tolerance for slowness, our capacity to wait, and our resistance. These are not trivial losses. They alter how we experience being alive.

The radical act, today, is to slow down. Some of us are returning to tangible rituals as a form of resistance. We are, in small ways, choosing friction again.

To use a film camera is to commit. You seek it out, carry it home, and load the film. You cannot edit a flaw. You are, by design, in a relationship with the thing you chose. It matters. The inconvenience is not a bug waiting to be fixed.

For too long, we’ve been sold a myth; the destination as performance. The analogue revival is a reminder that the means matter as much as the end. The journey forms us. The process builds us. The resistance makes us.

This reclamation is not a Luddite gesture— choose your ritual: your favourite tune, a specific time, a cherished chair. They are quiet decisions about how you spend your most finite resource—your attention.

This is the drag path. A deliberate slowing, a chosen friction—the evidence that you are.

I have been thinking about loading a camera again. Not because I want to be fifteen, or that film is better, but because I want the ritual of something ordinary— the learning curve, the drag path.

That is what people are reaching for when they buy a book they could download in seconds. Not the object itself, but the weight of their own choosing. The proof.

In a culture of infinite, weightless content, that weight feels radical. It is not an aesthetic preference. It is a way of being alive in the world that insists on presence— on the before and the after, the ritual and the residue, the thirty-six frames you were given, and how you decided to spend them.

Prev Article
Building a healthier plate in Kozhikode
Next Article
The quiet arithmetic

Related to this topic:

Comments (0)

Leave a Comment