First off, is it just me, or did we not get to see any of her works? Did she have part in these works at all? Or did she just expose us to them? Granted, I liked the works alot, better than most experimental works I've seen all semester, and I liked her alot. She was easy in front of a crowd, knew her subjects, and presented ideas without nervousness or poor speaking. I liked her alot. But the works were not hers. Why did she present them then? Did I miss something? I know she was there because I read her letters home, but none of these works were hers.
Second, like I said before, I really liked the works she presented.
"Vacuum" was the first experimental film I've ever seen that made me laugh. Most experimental films dig deep into depressions of the human mind, buried unspoken words brought to the surface in emotion climax. I like that idea in general, but after awhile it wears on the spirit. Perhaps this is why I enjoyed these pieces. Like Laura said, they are a sad people, but they hide it well. This is evidenced in their videos. In "Vacuum" we were able to explore cultural differences and copmare them in an interesting and fun way, unlike most depressing films.
"Les Egeres, The Lost Ones" was a little more sad in a way, but it also showed how they hang on as a culture. Even though they looked lonely,as if they were the few taking on the world's strife, the people standing on the rooftops of the cathedral seemed as if they were saying they might endure hardship, but they stand on their beliefs, their god, and in so doing they can face anything. They seemed incredibly heroic to me. Even though their lives stood very close to the plummeting edge, they stood firm, often walking even and only holding on for support every once in a while. The camera angles seemed to encourage the idea of instability in regard to the people, especially the girl that was lying on the doorframe; yet, the camera shifts so that we see the men standing tall on the cathedral, as if they are strong and mighty and unafraid fo the height. It is a deliberate hero shot with the camera low to the ground, making the people seem bigger than they are, and making them seem as stable as the cathedral. They draw their strength from their religion and weak as they are, they carry on, despite hardship. I loved the duality of frailness to strength. In a sense thee film said to us that fraility is what makes us heroic, because we are made to stand against it. This was my favorite film, probably because I too am religious.
Another video I really liked was the patterned work by Alshaibi. I felt absorbed in the work, as if I couldn't pull away from it. It had a certain amount of control over me, as if it were trying to hypnotize me. We've seen several patterned films in this class, but this one actually drew me in. I think it was the regularity of the circular patterns and the music. The music made it more interesting to me. Our culture emphasizes music greatly, and I'm sure that's part of it. I didn't get the spiritual sense from it, but I can see how it relates to the spiritual nature of their culture. For me, religion has nothing to do with patterns and music, so I didn't get the connection until I was told.
Finally, I especialy liked thee animation we saw. It was rather depressing, but the point was brought across well. I don't kknow much about Arabic culture, but after getting the background story from Laura I was able to make more sense of the animation. You could see how the man was constantly trying to be happy but it was always eluding him, and how he kept trying anyhow. I was interested by the water face, how he saw his face happy in the water, and then bottled it. Why does the water make him happy? My idea was that he was considerinig suicide when he saw the gathered water, and the thought of escaping the sadness through death was appealing for him and made him smile. Yet he knew killing himself was not he answer so he tried to conserve the happy feeling and leave the suicide. I have no idea if that waas the intention, but that is how it struck me.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Ankerman's D'Est and Michael Snow
One of our questions was to see how Michael Snow's work is reflected in D'Est, because Akerman listed him as an influence in her art. I decided to take that further and explain how Michael Snow's particular film Wavelength and D'Est are the same.
One I saw was the colorizations. One of my favorite parts of D'Est was the color scheme, and the same goes for Michale Snow's Wavelength. My favorite shot was a man in a red tank top sitting on a green bench against a wall of the same color. The bench and the background both were stripes, but they went at opposite angles, making them alike and yet disalike at the same time. It was like a photograph, but the character was moving. Wavelength used color in a similar way, but also different. The lone chair, I believe it was yellow, stood out from the background and it also looked like a photograph in it's own right. Yet, while Michael Snow used colored filters over his film and colored the entire film odd and alternating colors, D'Est stayed all one color scheme. It was all realistic colors, but it still seemed to flow together as one. The parts with the Russians standing in line or lying in the train station were a brownish, old-time feel and the scenes in the cook's room was all warm colors and warm ambient light.
Another aspect that was similar was the sense of stageplay in the film. In D'Est the characters seemed staged even though it was supposed to be real life. The one woman took forever to put on makeup and she also took very careful stock of her cooking. It also took her forever to turn on the record player, just standing there like she was completely frozen or such. In Wavelength, there is a murder portrayed, but it is also very fake. The death scene is incredibly staged. I think this is the point in both films, actually. Both are focused more on the art than the acting. The whole point is the colors and the staged aspect of "real" life.
I thought another aspect was similar, but it is more abstract. The camera usage was also, I felt a correlation between the films. In Wavelength the camera was a continuous zoom for 45 minutes to the other end of the room, ending on a photograph of water. The camera was jerky, however, and the film stock and filters changed often. This idea was also in D'Est. The camera was quite uniquely used as opposed to other films. It would be stable, then do a tracking shot for 5 minutes straight. There were never any very interesting or unique shot angles, but the closeups versus the long shots, the stable photograph- like shots versus the extremely long tracking shots, all made interesting use of a very basic idea...the tracking shot and the closeup. Wavelength did this also, by using a very basic idea of the zoom, yet using it artfully and in a new way that no one else had ever done.
One I saw was the colorizations. One of my favorite parts of D'Est was the color scheme, and the same goes for Michale Snow's Wavelength. My favorite shot was a man in a red tank top sitting on a green bench against a wall of the same color. The bench and the background both were stripes, but they went at opposite angles, making them alike and yet disalike at the same time. It was like a photograph, but the character was moving. Wavelength used color in a similar way, but also different. The lone chair, I believe it was yellow, stood out from the background and it also looked like a photograph in it's own right. Yet, while Michael Snow used colored filters over his film and colored the entire film odd and alternating colors, D'Est stayed all one color scheme. It was all realistic colors, but it still seemed to flow together as one. The parts with the Russians standing in line or lying in the train station were a brownish, old-time feel and the scenes in the cook's room was all warm colors and warm ambient light.
Another aspect that was similar was the sense of stageplay in the film. In D'Est the characters seemed staged even though it was supposed to be real life. The one woman took forever to put on makeup and she also took very careful stock of her cooking. It also took her forever to turn on the record player, just standing there like she was completely frozen or such. In Wavelength, there is a murder portrayed, but it is also very fake. The death scene is incredibly staged. I think this is the point in both films, actually. Both are focused more on the art than the acting. The whole point is the colors and the staged aspect of "real" life.
I thought another aspect was similar, but it is more abstract. The camera usage was also, I felt a correlation between the films. In Wavelength the camera was a continuous zoom for 45 minutes to the other end of the room, ending on a photograph of water. The camera was jerky, however, and the film stock and filters changed often. This idea was also in D'Est. The camera was quite uniquely used as opposed to other films. It would be stable, then do a tracking shot for 5 minutes straight. There were never any very interesting or unique shot angles, but the closeups versus the long shots, the stable photograph- like shots versus the extremely long tracking shots, all made interesting use of a very basic idea...the tracking shot and the closeup. Wavelength did this also, by using a very basic idea of the zoom, yet using it artfully and in a new way that no one else had ever done.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Gangsta Feet
Ya ya it's cheesy...but I couldn't resist. I actually planned on watching a movie for this blog but I ended up being too busy again. (I left home at 4:15 AM, worked, did some animation at school, then went to a club meeting, and just got home at 9:10 PM and I have to get up at 3:30 AM again for work all day tomorrow so I can't stay up late) So I was rather frantic, wondering what I could possibly blog on instead. Then I got home and I checked my facebook account. Everyone's activities are followed on facebook now, and someone had posted a link to a remix of Happy Feet. I thought it looked cute so I checked it out. After I watched it, I realized I had just interacted with art, almost without even thinking about it. YouTube has become a rather regular part of our lives. Just like most everyone is either on facebook, myspace, or, as in my case and many others, both-many people are beginning to see YouTube as a normal occurance to online activity. More than the quality of the movies it represents, the website is more about artful interaction. It makes art a part of life, instead of some intangible "filmmaker" thing. Anyone who has a camera and the internet can create something.
Now in a way this is a good concept, because it helps everyone get in touch with their creative side. It also connects artists online, which is a vast untapped universe of filmmakers connections. Out of these random, distance-separated and otherwise unlikely relationships come new ideas and applications of ideas. Perhaps some ideas one never would have ever actually tried to make come to fruition may actually happen because that one person met one other online that helped him realize his ideas were worth the time to make. Perhaps they created the listening, caring mentor role, or they may even have helped with technical difficulties. The point is, filmmaking is about connections and support, and the internet provides this well. In the case of YouTube, filmmakers are a dime a dozen. People that may never have thought of themselves as the next big director may suddenly realize an online video blog sounds fun...and that feeling grows and gets developed in a fun and easy way, until they realize they are more creative than they thought. A friend they met on YouTube may tell them that one of their videos was artistic and suddenly a new filmmaker is born.
There is another aspect to YouTube that I find interesting. It creates an environment of truly experimental film. Not experimental in the sense that we see in class, but true experimentation of the media. After all, who cares what people think of a video blog? A friend's birthday party? It isn't like the film is going to a festival. So the filmmakers hidden in their safe rooms and playing around with the video camera and fun and brand new editing techniques, are completely unhindered by society's wishes. They make exactly what they want. Whatever feels fun or creative to them, they do. There are no expectations. So why not?
So then you come up with random funny and totally off the wall videos like this Happy Feet remix: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcreSuOfYYQ
No, the video isn't especially good, but that isn't the point. The point is, whoever this filmmaker was, he wanted to make a spoof of Happy Feet. He probably saw the film and felt he could make it better, or at least better according to what he personally wanted to see. He wasn't hindered by legal rights for use of footage from Happy Feet, or rights to the music he used, because he has no interest in selling his work. He made it simply for his own enjoyment. And personally, as I watched it, I could sense this kid's passion, and it made the video that much more interesting to watch.
Now in a way this is a good concept, because it helps everyone get in touch with their creative side. It also connects artists online, which is a vast untapped universe of filmmakers connections. Out of these random, distance-separated and otherwise unlikely relationships come new ideas and applications of ideas. Perhaps some ideas one never would have ever actually tried to make come to fruition may actually happen because that one person met one other online that helped him realize his ideas were worth the time to make. Perhaps they created the listening, caring mentor role, or they may even have helped with technical difficulties. The point is, filmmaking is about connections and support, and the internet provides this well. In the case of YouTube, filmmakers are a dime a dozen. People that may never have thought of themselves as the next big director may suddenly realize an online video blog sounds fun...and that feeling grows and gets developed in a fun and easy way, until they realize they are more creative than they thought. A friend they met on YouTube may tell them that one of their videos was artistic and suddenly a new filmmaker is born.
There is another aspect to YouTube that I find interesting. It creates an environment of truly experimental film. Not experimental in the sense that we see in class, but true experimentation of the media. After all, who cares what people think of a video blog? A friend's birthday party? It isn't like the film is going to a festival. So the filmmakers hidden in their safe rooms and playing around with the video camera and fun and brand new editing techniques, are completely unhindered by society's wishes. They make exactly what they want. Whatever feels fun or creative to them, they do. There are no expectations. So why not?
So then you come up with random funny and totally off the wall videos like this Happy Feet remix: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcreSuOfYYQ
No, the video isn't especially good, but that isn't the point. The point is, whoever this filmmaker was, he wanted to make a spoof of Happy Feet. He probably saw the film and felt he could make it better, or at least better according to what he personally wanted to see. He wasn't hindered by legal rights for use of footage from Happy Feet, or rights to the music he used, because he has no interest in selling his work. He made it simply for his own enjoyment. And personally, as I watched it, I could sense this kid's passion, and it made the video that much more interesting to watch.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Filmmakers
So I did the E-Reserve readings (I figured out how to do it from home!!!) and I really liked this quote from the first reading: "I got crazy about movie immediately and I decided to make movies that same night...." Apparently she got inspired by Jean-Luc Godard, and off she went into the business, with no prior interest. Within a year she had gotten a film made, and three years later, she was recognized for her work. it says she went to film school and traveled to Paris at a theatre school as well. Once she decided what to do, she ran and did it. I think film is a passion quite like that. I did the same thing. My entire life I had no idea what to do with myself. I had never even considered film, because as interesting as I found movies, they seemed to be in a world all their own, and making one never seemed possible. If there is one thing I've learned though, it's that you have to have passion for this medium. Alot of people settle on film because they think it might be fun to be famous, or maybe it seems like less work than a science degree in its stead. But true filmmakers are those that realize the hard work behind it. They set goals and do whatever they can to realize them. Even if they are sidetracked for a few years, or arent' recognized for several years, they press on. I've had the same troubles when I started out, but I also had the same goal- get out and make a film! Practice, connect, learn, work! Film is exciting, but it's also incredibly hard work and takes much focus and diliberate intention.
The other quote I want to discuss is this: "I think it's the same, narrative and non-narrative. I've done both, I know it's exactly the same. When you do both, you know you are dealing with the same problems anyways."
I like this quote. As much as I hate experimental film, I have come to see that many of them do in fact have a narrative. Perhaps I am coming to a turning point. No, I may never like experimental film, but I think Akerman is correct in this. After all, just because you don't like one film doesn't mean you won't like another. I hate drama usually, but I loved Phantom of the Opera, and a few others as well...you can't lump everything into one category. A filmmaker has artistic decisions to make at all times, whether Hollywood film or experimental. You have the same basic decisions to make, the same locations and actors to deal with, and sometimes even a script to write...as wel as the age old hated budget. These things relate between both types of film. You are dealing with the same storyline ideas, basic concepts, and thought processes of the films, whether narrative or non-narrative. Perhaps experimental could be called a new genre of film, just like a horror film, a documentary, family, or drama. Then again, that leaves out their many differences as well, perhaps even dumbs the very idea of experimental films down...but at the bare bones issue, they are essentially the same.
The other quote I want to discuss is this: "I think it's the same, narrative and non-narrative. I've done both, I know it's exactly the same. When you do both, you know you are dealing with the same problems anyways."
I like this quote. As much as I hate experimental film, I have come to see that many of them do in fact have a narrative. Perhaps I am coming to a turning point. No, I may never like experimental film, but I think Akerman is correct in this. After all, just because you don't like one film doesn't mean you won't like another. I hate drama usually, but I loved Phantom of the Opera, and a few others as well...you can't lump everything into one category. A filmmaker has artistic decisions to make at all times, whether Hollywood film or experimental. You have the same basic decisions to make, the same locations and actors to deal with, and sometimes even a script to write...as wel as the age old hated budget. These things relate between both types of film. You are dealing with the same storyline ideas, basic concepts, and thought processes of the films, whether narrative or non-narrative. Perhaps experimental could be called a new genre of film, just like a horror film, a documentary, family, or drama. Then again, that leaves out their many differences as well, perhaps even dumbs the very idea of experimental films down...but at the bare bones issue, they are essentially the same.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Blog based on Corpse thing haha
I forgot what the game was called now. But usually it is done with drawings, where you can't see what other people are doing in the space before. This time we had to write questions and answers and write new questions from the answers we saw. It was difficult and really made you have to think deeply about what they were saying. Usually if I had to form a question from an answer the answer would be really vague and not even mention the movie, so I had to greatly improvise on the way. It was really very fun though, and challenging. My favorite one we read out loud was the one about Everyday Bad Dream. The whole kid's entertainment character turned nightmare was a good idea as it was, and it made for some great discussion. But the page I got to report about was about Data Diaries and Fist Fight, so here goes:
The original question was: "In Fist Fight, what instruments or objects could you make out during the film?" I think this is a really vague question to begin with, and not conceptual at all. Fortunately the next person in line (I know who it is but I'm not sure he'd want me to say?) answered: "Not quite sure, it felt like an acid trip mixed in with animation from hell, and I'm sure just about any imagery can come of that." I actually laughed out loud in class when we were still writing, as I was next in line. Keep in mind, I never saw that first question. Yet, I didn't need any explanation as to which film was being talked about. Yes it may be a crude way to talk of film, but it really gets down to the bare bones of the issue after all. The film was fast paced, hard to follow, and had many unrelated images thrown together. The animation was not as bad as hell, but it certainly wasn't Disney. I especially remember the Santa that came on screen as shapes, the shapes fell apart into their sections, and then the Santa formed again as the shapes came together again. I personally felt this was a metaphor for the whole film- the film was using the idea of frames being pieces of a film, just like in animation especially, where every other frame must be drawn. As an animator himself, Robert Breer knew of this especially well and liked to explore it in regular film. The Santa was in pieces, the came together, and fell apart again. Creepy, yes. But a great way to show in a few seconds what he was trying to bring across throughout the whole film. As for the images thrown together, I think it's very interesting and after knowing the director was an animator, I have new respect for why he made the film. Being an animator myself, I can really see where he is coming from. But I still liked the comment.
So moving on, I then asked: "What concepts, if any, are common between "Fist Fight" and "Data Diaries"? and the next person in line answered: "That the viewer is getting drowned in a sea of information that was unclear to us." I like this answer on a certain level, but I think it could have been explored much deeper. I don't think "getting drowned in information" is a concept. A feeling you get while you watch both films, sure, but not a concept. I was thinking more along the lines that a common idea between both films was that the director was breaking things down to a smaller level in each film, so that we could understand the whole better. Robert Breer was breaking his film down into frames because he wanted to explore the smaller version of the whole, and Corey Archangel was breaking down a computer's system into small, visible pieces, images and sound, so we could see them clearly and in a new way.
The next answer I liked was this: "The point of Fist Fight was all about insanity of the situation. There is so much flying at you, the fists, the situation, emotions, all in one piece until it explodes...then you get a fist fight."
I don't really think there's much to add to that statement. He pegged the idea well! I think that if Robert Breer was thinking at all about a narrative, this may be exactly what he would say to describe that narrative.
The original question was: "In Fist Fight, what instruments or objects could you make out during the film?" I think this is a really vague question to begin with, and not conceptual at all. Fortunately the next person in line (I know who it is but I'm not sure he'd want me to say?) answered: "Not quite sure, it felt like an acid trip mixed in with animation from hell, and I'm sure just about any imagery can come of that." I actually laughed out loud in class when we were still writing, as I was next in line. Keep in mind, I never saw that first question. Yet, I didn't need any explanation as to which film was being talked about. Yes it may be a crude way to talk of film, but it really gets down to the bare bones of the issue after all. The film was fast paced, hard to follow, and had many unrelated images thrown together. The animation was not as bad as hell, but it certainly wasn't Disney. I especially remember the Santa that came on screen as shapes, the shapes fell apart into their sections, and then the Santa formed again as the shapes came together again. I personally felt this was a metaphor for the whole film- the film was using the idea of frames being pieces of a film, just like in animation especially, where every other frame must be drawn. As an animator himself, Robert Breer knew of this especially well and liked to explore it in regular film. The Santa was in pieces, the came together, and fell apart again. Creepy, yes. But a great way to show in a few seconds what he was trying to bring across throughout the whole film. As for the images thrown together, I think it's very interesting and after knowing the director was an animator, I have new respect for why he made the film. Being an animator myself, I can really see where he is coming from. But I still liked the comment.
So moving on, I then asked: "What concepts, if any, are common between "Fist Fight" and "Data Diaries"? and the next person in line answered: "That the viewer is getting drowned in a sea of information that was unclear to us." I like this answer on a certain level, but I think it could have been explored much deeper. I don't think "getting drowned in information" is a concept. A feeling you get while you watch both films, sure, but not a concept. I was thinking more along the lines that a common idea between both films was that the director was breaking things down to a smaller level in each film, so that we could understand the whole better. Robert Breer was breaking his film down into frames because he wanted to explore the smaller version of the whole, and Corey Archangel was breaking down a computer's system into small, visible pieces, images and sound, so we could see them clearly and in a new way.
The next answer I liked was this: "The point of Fist Fight was all about insanity of the situation. There is so much flying at you, the fists, the situation, emotions, all in one piece until it explodes...then you get a fist fight."
I don't really think there's much to add to that statement. He pegged the idea well! I think that if Robert Breer was thinking at all about a narrative, this may be exactly what he would say to describe that narrative.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Blogging Every Day
Let me just say that this assignment is a good idea in theory, but not so great in practice. It forces people to become creative even when they are not feeling creative, so it trains you to be creative, yet it also assumes that we have what absolutely NO college student has, and that is TIME. Yes, we should make time, for school assignments. Bu let me give you a rundown of my day, and perhaps you will change your mind.
2:30 AM: Wake up, get ready for work
3:15 AM: Leave for work
3:50 AM: Arrive at work
4:00 AM - noon: Work
Noon- 1:30: Drive home, go to the post office to pick up a COD package
1:30 PM- 1:45 PM: Change, check email, quick shower
1:45 PM- 2:15 PM: Drive to bus stop, get on bus
3:15 PM - 5:15 PM: Dance class
5: 20 PM - 6:30 PM: Bus home
6:30 PM - 7:00 PM: Drive to Bible study
7:00 PM - 9:30 PM: Bible study
9:30 PM - 10:00 PM: Get home, check my Panthermail for the email from Carl to do a reading and blog, only to find that the readings he wants us to do are back at school on EReserve, and the one that is supposed to be on D2L is not there.
10:10 PM: current time.
This is the busiest day of my week and I think it's ridiculous that when I finally do manage to get the time to do my blog, the readings are not made available. Therefore what I am I supposed to write about? I haven't experienced any art today. Maybe dance class, or some of the artwork at Trader Joe's. But no film art, certainly. And I have no photos to share.
So I guess I'll go to YouTube real quick. There's no way I'm staying up 24 hours today, so this better be quick.
So here goes. I'll do a search for experimental films and see if YouTube has anything interesting to react to.
Okies this one looks interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6X6R4inM08
I liked the beginning because it reminded me of a film we watched in I believe it was 210 class...it was called Man With a Movie Camera. I can see the resemblance between them because both dealt with the use of machinary; however, Man With a Movie Camera compared the human body to that machinary, and this one does not. Man With a Movie Camera was a film and this one is video. Also, Vertov (I think that was his name) wanted his camera to be the eye of performance. He used the idea of the "kino-eye" or "camera eye". He wanted to remain on the outside of the film, wanted the camera to see everything. Unfortunately no one can truly have no control over a film, because he still chose where to put the camera, so he still had say in what the camera saw, no matter how much he tried to stay out of it. But this YouTube video doesn't try to stay away from interaction. The video is altered in funky colors, so you know that whoever edited it was interested in the special effects a computer editing software program can offer. He tested those waters in many interesting ways. I really liked it. I didn't think it was as artistic as Man With a Movie Camera, but I liked it better because it was in color and more contemporary to my time.
Then again, once the actual dog and rap video part of it starts, it all goes downhill. You can tell right there that it was not made with artistic intnetions, but rather was made just to be funny. Alot of things are considered funny that I just stare at and think "What the H was he thinking"? That's definitely what I'm thinking now. This is experimental? No, this is a home movie by some loser who thinks he's funny. The rest pf it is a little more interesting, branching off into odd colored planes and slightly distorted images of everyday things like cars and buses. I even sort of liked the dancing pigeons. In a way, it is a contemporary version of experimental films, with all the special effects of video. I just think that whoever made it needs to try to focus on staying artistic, instead of putting in weird "funny" things. (like the rapping dog or the kid going down the slide) Or real images that make no sense, like burning the dollar bill. I mean, why? And the kid doing a weird hip hop dance, and the break dancers. This is an experimental film. We are not here to watch a kid dance, not unless there is something new in the way we are made to view it. But there was nothing interesting about those shots. I felt rather taken out of the film there. Instead of being artistic and experimental, it was very home movie. In the end, there were moments I enjoyed and I liked how it had a steady theme of hip hop, but if it was to be considered a good artistic video it would need major improvements. Then again, rules are always being broken in experimental film, and for all I know this kid could become famous and this could be his signature work. Ya.
2:30 AM: Wake up, get ready for work
3:15 AM: Leave for work
3:50 AM: Arrive at work
4:00 AM - noon: Work
Noon- 1:30: Drive home, go to the post office to pick up a COD package
1:30 PM- 1:45 PM: Change, check email, quick shower
1:45 PM- 2:15 PM: Drive to bus stop, get on bus
3:15 PM - 5:15 PM: Dance class
5: 20 PM - 6:30 PM: Bus home
6:30 PM - 7:00 PM: Drive to Bible study
7:00 PM - 9:30 PM: Bible study
9:30 PM - 10:00 PM: Get home, check my Panthermail for the email from Carl to do a reading and blog, only to find that the readings he wants us to do are back at school on EReserve, and the one that is supposed to be on D2L is not there.
10:10 PM: current time.
This is the busiest day of my week and I think it's ridiculous that when I finally do manage to get the time to do my blog, the readings are not made available. Therefore what I am I supposed to write about? I haven't experienced any art today. Maybe dance class, or some of the artwork at Trader Joe's. But no film art, certainly. And I have no photos to share.
So I guess I'll go to YouTube real quick. There's no way I'm staying up 24 hours today, so this better be quick.
So here goes. I'll do a search for experimental films and see if YouTube has anything interesting to react to.
Okies this one looks interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6X6R4inM08
I liked the beginning because it reminded me of a film we watched in I believe it was 210 class...it was called Man With a Movie Camera. I can see the resemblance between them because both dealt with the use of machinary; however, Man With a Movie Camera compared the human body to that machinary, and this one does not. Man With a Movie Camera was a film and this one is video. Also, Vertov (I think that was his name) wanted his camera to be the eye of performance. He used the idea of the "kino-eye" or "camera eye". He wanted to remain on the outside of the film, wanted the camera to see everything. Unfortunately no one can truly have no control over a film, because he still chose where to put the camera, so he still had say in what the camera saw, no matter how much he tried to stay out of it. But this YouTube video doesn't try to stay away from interaction. The video is altered in funky colors, so you know that whoever edited it was interested in the special effects a computer editing software program can offer. He tested those waters in many interesting ways. I really liked it. I didn't think it was as artistic as Man With a Movie Camera, but I liked it better because it was in color and more contemporary to my time.
Then again, once the actual dog and rap video part of it starts, it all goes downhill. You can tell right there that it was not made with artistic intnetions, but rather was made just to be funny. Alot of things are considered funny that I just stare at and think "What the H was he thinking"? That's definitely what I'm thinking now. This is experimental? No, this is a home movie by some loser who thinks he's funny. The rest pf it is a little more interesting, branching off into odd colored planes and slightly distorted images of everyday things like cars and buses. I even sort of liked the dancing pigeons. In a way, it is a contemporary version of experimental films, with all the special effects of video. I just think that whoever made it needs to try to focus on staying artistic, instead of putting in weird "funny" things. (like the rapping dog or the kid going down the slide) Or real images that make no sense, like burning the dollar bill. I mean, why? And the kid doing a weird hip hop dance, and the break dancers. This is an experimental film. We are not here to watch a kid dance, not unless there is something new in the way we are made to view it. But there was nothing interesting about those shots. I felt rather taken out of the film there. Instead of being artistic and experimental, it was very home movie. In the end, there were moments I enjoyed and I liked how it had a steady theme of hip hop, but if it was to be considered a good artistic video it would need major improvements. Then again, rules are always being broken in experimental film, and for all I know this kid could become famous and this could be his signature work. Ya.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Pixelvision
I went to D2L to find the info we are supposed to read for the feature length film next week, but I didn't see the reading he talked about. I did, however, see a reading by Michael Almereyda, who used a pixelvision camera to make an hour long film after seeing Sadie Benning's diarylike films. His ideas are pretty interesting, and I think it is cool that he is willing to break free of traditional cinema to try something new. For his next feature he says he plans on using 35 mm and pixelvision together. Now that's something you don't see in a theatre. And yet, he says he still wants to do a regular film. I got the idea that he wants to be a bigtime director in Hollywood film. I can understand his passion. Apparently he's tried over and over again but can never get funding. I'm glad he is still trying, despite the hardship. It shows he truly loves film! If he had made it in the Hollywood film business, more than likely he wouldn't have pursued pixelvision. Well, if you can't cut it in the bigtime, you can always go experimental, hey? (sorry, I can't help it I guess...anyways, I do admire his efforts. His creativity is not his problem apparently. He just needs practice on convincing people that he can make money in the box office. And heck, if his blend of 35 mm and pixelvision works for him, that'll be his way in. We all know how hard this business is.)
Anyways, I wanted to share this quote I got from his pixelvision story:
"A final confession. I still harbor vast hopes to direct big-budget films. Films with lavish sets, spectacular action sequences, actors everybody knows. Films that feed and reflect the immensity of pop culture. Basically, I want Tim Burton's job. But what is cinema, anyway? 'Love. Hate. Action. Death. In one word: emotion.' Sam Fuller's blunt inventory makes sense to me, and pixel- vision can cover those bases as well as the usual high-priced machinery. So there are days when I'm content. Days when I can pick up a pixel camera and leave my stunning future behind. Film makers, after all, are born free, but are everywhere in chains. The PXL 2000, if you can get your hands on one, remains liberating, spell-binding and inexhaustible."
I see alot of myself in this guy. He has a big dream and he's working hard to achieve that dream, no matter what goes wrong. He rationalizes his dream in a way to stay happy (perhaps we could say he chooses to see the glass half-full) but he never relinquishes his dream. He hasn't reached it yet, but he is constantly working toward it. He is even trying a new medium, just to get a name for himself, to try to taste the future he wants for himself. This is one postitive guy and I believe he will go far with this attitude. He has a goal for himself, and he works toward it diligently; yet along the way he chooses to be happy with progress he has made, and therefore gives himself confidence in his artistry and accomplishment. He could easily choose to give up or say he must be doing something wrong, but he refuses to. Instead he pushes ahead, doing his dream in any way he can. I like this guy. Watch for his name in Hollywood- if he doesn't give in to experimental film, a guy with passion like this will eventually get what he wants.
And now, for a brief view of the videos we watched in class today.
I think the one I enjoyed the best was Data Entries by Cory Archangel. As annoying as it was to listen to the incessant noise and as hard to watch as it was, I still found it interesting. I had often heard computer noises before in movies. So where did these noises come from? Who decided what a computer sounds like? I never hear my computer make those noises! Did someone beat Archangel to this project? Perhaps while making a computer? Someone must know. I got annoyed with it after about 30 seconds and really I would have almost liked it if he had stopped it there. After that, however, the newness of the idea wore off greatly and I just got irritated with the aweful noise it made.
Other than that, my next favorite film was Thursday. I liked it because it was more narrative than experimental. The artistically framed images and the lengths of time we were given to inspect them really made it seem like a story. I especially enjoyed the use of the clear mug. It was experimental in that it was close up and we could see the fluid inside move, but the mug was used several times throughout the film, so we started to turn to it as a story builder. In the end we seemed to get the idea that we were watching the day in the life of a man in his house, how he gets up early, sits in his rocking chair, drinks some coffee, enjoys the beautiful weather, then washes his glass and goes to sleep. It was the most diarylike of them all, to me. The most explicit in theme.
As for "Gently Down the Stream", once again I am moved to anger that we are forced to watch crap like this. Yes I can see why you say it is artistic, but I personally find it rude and disgusting that we must watch a film that is sexually explicit. I happen to be a very moral person who is proud of being pure. I HATE having to watch this stuff. The entire thing gave me the impression of a lesbian dreaming about her sexual desires. The woman at the rowing machine and the women swimming and walking into the water were all sexual images, and accompanied by the sexual words and allusions to lesbian behaviour, the film became one big sex dream. Who makes stuff like this? Please don't comment about how artistic it was and how I should go into more detail of why the artist was successful and what her images and her words did to get her point across...because as much as I could talk about the art involved, I refuse to because the very thought of that film makes me feel dirty and sick inside.
Anyways, I wanted to share this quote I got from his pixelvision story:
"A final confession. I still harbor vast hopes to direct big-budget films. Films with lavish sets, spectacular action sequences, actors everybody knows. Films that feed and reflect the immensity of pop culture. Basically, I want Tim Burton's job. But what is cinema, anyway? 'Love. Hate. Action. Death. In one word: emotion.' Sam Fuller's blunt inventory makes sense to me, and pixel- vision can cover those bases as well as the usual high-priced machinery. So there are days when I'm content. Days when I can pick up a pixel camera and leave my stunning future behind. Film makers, after all, are born free, but are everywhere in chains. The PXL 2000, if you can get your hands on one, remains liberating, spell-binding and inexhaustible."
I see alot of myself in this guy. He has a big dream and he's working hard to achieve that dream, no matter what goes wrong. He rationalizes his dream in a way to stay happy (perhaps we could say he chooses to see the glass half-full) but he never relinquishes his dream. He hasn't reached it yet, but he is constantly working toward it. He is even trying a new medium, just to get a name for himself, to try to taste the future he wants for himself. This is one postitive guy and I believe he will go far with this attitude. He has a goal for himself, and he works toward it diligently; yet along the way he chooses to be happy with progress he has made, and therefore gives himself confidence in his artistry and accomplishment. He could easily choose to give up or say he must be doing something wrong, but he refuses to. Instead he pushes ahead, doing his dream in any way he can. I like this guy. Watch for his name in Hollywood- if he doesn't give in to experimental film, a guy with passion like this will eventually get what he wants.
And now, for a brief view of the videos we watched in class today.
I think the one I enjoyed the best was Data Entries by Cory Archangel. As annoying as it was to listen to the incessant noise and as hard to watch as it was, I still found it interesting. I had often heard computer noises before in movies. So where did these noises come from? Who decided what a computer sounds like? I never hear my computer make those noises! Did someone beat Archangel to this project? Perhaps while making a computer? Someone must know. I got annoyed with it after about 30 seconds and really I would have almost liked it if he had stopped it there. After that, however, the newness of the idea wore off greatly and I just got irritated with the aweful noise it made.
Other than that, my next favorite film was Thursday. I liked it because it was more narrative than experimental. The artistically framed images and the lengths of time we were given to inspect them really made it seem like a story. I especially enjoyed the use of the clear mug. It was experimental in that it was close up and we could see the fluid inside move, but the mug was used several times throughout the film, so we started to turn to it as a story builder. In the end we seemed to get the idea that we were watching the day in the life of a man in his house, how he gets up early, sits in his rocking chair, drinks some coffee, enjoys the beautiful weather, then washes his glass and goes to sleep. It was the most diarylike of them all, to me. The most explicit in theme.
As for "Gently Down the Stream", once again I am moved to anger that we are forced to watch crap like this. Yes I can see why you say it is artistic, but I personally find it rude and disgusting that we must watch a film that is sexually explicit. I happen to be a very moral person who is proud of being pure. I HATE having to watch this stuff. The entire thing gave me the impression of a lesbian dreaming about her sexual desires. The woman at the rowing machine and the women swimming and walking into the water were all sexual images, and accompanied by the sexual words and allusions to lesbian behaviour, the film became one big sex dream. Who makes stuff like this? Please don't comment about how artistic it was and how I should go into more detail of why the artist was successful and what her images and her words did to get her point across...because as much as I could talk about the art involved, I refuse to because the very thought of that film makes me feel dirty and sick inside.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Old VS. New Video
Hmm. Well this entry ought to be interesting! First off I'd like to talk about the old videos we saw today. I saw many of them last semester so it was nice to be paying attention to more detail this time around instead of trying to follow the meaning behind it like last time. One video I thought I'd hate but I actually ended up finding interesting was Lisa Steele's Birthday Suit. I liked it because it told a story, unlike most of the films we had seen so far. It wasn't out of focus, it wasn't random images, and even though she was nude she was frank and easy with her nakedness, not sexual at all in any of her movements. I liked hearing about each of her scars and it made me think of my own. I still don't know that I'd consider that film "art", however. Just like Vito Acconi's Theme Song. I can see the thought process and I can appreciate that he was trying to break the barrier of the screen, to allow us viewers into his space...but I couldn't watch it very long because I found him dirty and unnecessarily crude. I found his face and disturbing eyes much worse to watch than Lisa's naked body. I don't like being seduced by a creepy smoking dirty eyed so called artist. How is this artistic? Yes he improvised well, and I like his thought process, but there my interest dies.
I watched a few videos on YouTube and I found that they were not as artistic as the ones we saw in class today. Although old video and new video still have the same home movie feel, the older videos with their grainy footage and out of focus closeups add to the medium, making you feel close to the actors. I also like the grainy footage because like film with its flashing frames, it catches your eyes and keeps you attention. But these new YouTube videos, even though they have the same feel, were less personal in medium even though just as personal in feel. It seemed like an odd contrast to me, and one that did not work. It made me appreciate what we saw in class much more. For instance, I will compare two videos that I saw.
The old video is Sadie Benning's If Every Girl Had a Diary, and the new video is here: http://cogcollective.blogspot.com/2006/12/screen-dump-videos.html Click on the third one, "SadEyedAnimeGrl".
These videos were very similar, just two girls telling us a little about themselves. The old version was a pixelvision camera, and it was slightly blurry and details were washed out of the girl's face. She did closeups of her eyes and hands, and made her hand in strong black and white contrast, do random but every day movements. Even though we've seen them before, in black and white we saw them in a new way. In the new video however, Anime Girl was still artistic, but in a whole new way. The video she used was better quality but the lighting had the same high contrast as Sadie's, so her face's details were also lost. Her image was obviously doctored with special effects, which I felt was not a bad thing but made it more about the technology than the relationship of actor to viewer. This filmmaker made the video to be funny, as evidenced by her language and her use of special effects like fake glasses and random bursts of funky music. Just because it is comedy does not make it any less artistic, but I didn't feel any real connection to the actor like I did with Sadie's piece. Hers was almost haunting and it drew you in and explored new ways to look at the face and hands. Anime Girl's was an exploration of humor and color and special effects. I felt it was a great way to show how far we've come in video. Video can still be what Acconi said, if it is done correctly. But in our age and with all the technology out there, the images are far less grainy and the feeling that Acconci was going for is lost on the new era of video. Vicconci said his video should be about the idea more than the medium. Now I think with the rise of special effects we could say this focus could change from idea back to medium. Now that we can do so much with video there are more avenues to explore and more variety in results. I also think the personal one on one aspect of video can be dropped for a more artistic, perhaps abstract form. No, it isn't my preference, but video as a medium is so broad now and can be doctored so many ways that to not explore more of these avenues would be to cut short advancement and creativity. I personally think that not enough people have used these doctoring methods in video.
I watched a few videos on YouTube and I found that they were not as artistic as the ones we saw in class today. Although old video and new video still have the same home movie feel, the older videos with their grainy footage and out of focus closeups add to the medium, making you feel close to the actors. I also like the grainy footage because like film with its flashing frames, it catches your eyes and keeps you attention. But these new YouTube videos, even though they have the same feel, were less personal in medium even though just as personal in feel. It seemed like an odd contrast to me, and one that did not work. It made me appreciate what we saw in class much more. For instance, I will compare two videos that I saw.
The old video is Sadie Benning's If Every Girl Had a Diary, and the new video is here: http://cogcollective.blogspot.com/2006/12/screen-dump-videos.html Click on the third one, "SadEyedAnimeGrl".
These videos were very similar, just two girls telling us a little about themselves. The old version was a pixelvision camera, and it was slightly blurry and details were washed out of the girl's face. She did closeups of her eyes and hands, and made her hand in strong black and white contrast, do random but every day movements. Even though we've seen them before, in black and white we saw them in a new way. In the new video however, Anime Girl was still artistic, but in a whole new way. The video she used was better quality but the lighting had the same high contrast as Sadie's, so her face's details were also lost. Her image was obviously doctored with special effects, which I felt was not a bad thing but made it more about the technology than the relationship of actor to viewer. This filmmaker made the video to be funny, as evidenced by her language and her use of special effects like fake glasses and random bursts of funky music. Just because it is comedy does not make it any less artistic, but I didn't feel any real connection to the actor like I did with Sadie's piece. Hers was almost haunting and it drew you in and explored new ways to look at the face and hands. Anime Girl's was an exploration of humor and color and special effects. I felt it was a great way to show how far we've come in video. Video can still be what Acconi said, if it is done correctly. But in our age and with all the technology out there, the images are far less grainy and the feeling that Acconci was going for is lost on the new era of video. Vicconci said his video should be about the idea more than the medium. Now I think with the rise of special effects we could say this focus could change from idea back to medium. Now that we can do so much with video there are more avenues to explore and more variety in results. I also think the personal one on one aspect of video can be dropped for a more artistic, perhaps abstract form. No, it isn't my preference, but video as a medium is so broad now and can be doctored so many ways that to not explore more of these avenues would be to cut short advancement and creativity. I personally think that not enough people have used these doctoring methods in video.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)