I was really impressed with this artist. I had just as much fun as the last time, with the camera obscura. I was genuinely interested and had real questions and once again got inspired. I doubt I'll actually decide to engage in this art, but I think it's very cool that she can actually sell her work. That's difficult to do in art! She's lucky. It's hard to find a medium in art that will encourage people to buy. It has to be functional art. Basic drawings and paintings just don't do it anymore. Very few people will buy that kind of art. It makes me want to finally give in and adapt my art to something functional and buyable, so I won't have to live in a box when I graduate lol! Or rather, live at home until I'm fifty. That's really not cool, either. (not gonna lie)
One thing I specifically enjoyed about this art was how engaging it was. Much like watching a film in a theatre, it engaged an entire group together. We fed off each other's laughter also, which I really liked. The silly short stories seemed to encourage people to laugh, as well, and by extention caused us to engage with each other even more. At the same time, however, the experience was entirely personal, since we each had our own viewfinder. I found that this made the stories more engaging because each picture had to manipulated by you. You had to pay attention all the time to hear the noise to change the pictures. It ensured your engagement with the subject matter. Once again, I was pleasantly surprised to engage with true experimental art, and I enjoyed it and was inspired.
Another thing I liked about it was the stories themselves. They were often childlike, bringing back memories of being a kid, when we watched these viewfinders as little 7 and 8 year olds. I found that I felt younger and wonderfully immature, laughing at silly kid stories and actually enjoying being immature for once. Carefree almost. Perhaps these can be marketed as good stress relievers!
At the same time, I could see how the stories could be made more artsy instead of childlike as well. I like this versatility. "Fear and Trembling" was great! It was not childlike at all. It had true artistic aspects to it and was not so big on the laughter side. I liked it because I had no idea what was going on but the images were vibrant and interesting and the noises used were almost foreboding in manner. I liked the contrast of foreboding music vs the bright very normal images or the dinner table and girls' shoes. It was interesting to see how the sounds impacted the images and changed the story so completely. It made me realize how important the sounds were to the piece. After all, as kids we had no sound, just the pictures.
It's pretty amazing that this artist has been able to put together history, remeniscence, and usefullness into a brand new, yet old art. I thoroughly enjoyed it!
Monday, March 26, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
Camera Obscura
This marks the first artist's work that was not only interesting to me, but also inspired me. Ethan's work was so original and appealing, experimental in a sense, but not as a genre...rather his work was true experimentation. I like how he dug into the fundamentals of film itself and was fascinated by those basics, and used them to his advantage. It reminds me of how I love 80's clothing, but I only certain kinds. Yes, nothing is as good as the original, as they say, but the original doesn't fit this new world we live in without a small twist of some sort. Just like we wear 80's clothing with a twist of new century style, Ethan used the old thought processes of ancient cameras and went back to the very basics of what film is- light sculpture- and gave it a modern twist. I loved his work, completely and totally. Shocker!
First of all I really enjoyed the installation aspect of his work. I like being immersed in the work, feeling part of it and almost as if I am partially in control of it...much like the sphere film we saw in 102 last year. We were able to manipulate the experience each time, with new groups of people. It encouraged us to be just as creative as the artist. This time, for this work, we joked around in front of the lens, so the others inside could laugh and watch our antics from inside. We were able to manipulate the art. It was also different every time we interacted with it.
Second, I really enjoyed his time lapsed photography. That work in itself was a whole new art form for itself. It was a film made of photography shots. You could almost call it film animation. Yet, it was documentary, catching the people as they reacted with the work. It was almost a study of frames, much like Robert Breer. You could better understand the whole film if you could experience the frames separately. To me this is a whole new medium, and I could see him making real use of this idea. For once, as I said before, I was inspired. I might even try to do this myself! Here are the ideas I got from the session:
1) Screensavers, to make money
2) Framed screens (I've seen them before) showing recorded video from his time lapsed photography-it's like a live photo- it will engage you over and over every time you see it
3) Installation museum works, recording the camera obscuras and projecting them into a space, so you feel surrounded by the picture and it will not get obscured with bad weather-also easier to show without all the setup work
4) Projecting into spaces with white objects in it, sculptures almost...like you could put several oddly shaped squares in the space and project the camera obscuras that were recorded from all different angles, coating the odd forms
5) Sound could be added to the framed works, to help people sleep or to set a mood for a nice dinner at good restaurants
6) Make time lapsed photography that correlates in theme... maybe even stage objects to come by the lens or people, etc, so that the space reflects and matches what the light sees in the space...them take a photo or a time lapse series and that way it works together instead of being always random
7) Make recorded time lapsed photography sessions of a space several days in a row or longer, then put it all in a gallery space as several recordings, using the dual projector idea, showing the different times side by side so you can compare the differences
8) Another gallery idea, take time lapsed photography of the camera obscuras and put them along the walls and let people walk around the space, experiencing each one separately or being able to walk tot he center and look around at all of them, completely surrounded- some could be live as well...you could have some on the ceiling and floors also, to be completely engaged
9) Make the time lapse photo series and project them one over the other with the dual projection system, with camera obscuras from the same place or closely related places, or completely random places, like a racetrack with galloping horses superimposed over an ocean scene or sky scene, so they look almost like they are galloping in the clouds or in the ocean
10) Have live performers outside as they engage with the viewers inside...make them interact in the space almost like theatre, only in a whole new way...almost like a moving photograph. Could also be done as a theme, the camera obscura happening inside the theatre as the actors act outside. The viewers could watch from the theatre inside but they are not watching the stage, instead the camera obscura outside where everything is ether scripted or improv. Would make a great theme for time lapsed photography.
Awesome stuff awesome! This is true experimental cinema- opening people's eyes to new ways of doing things by true experimentation. Good stuff.
First of all I really enjoyed the installation aspect of his work. I like being immersed in the work, feeling part of it and almost as if I am partially in control of it...much like the sphere film we saw in 102 last year. We were able to manipulate the experience each time, with new groups of people. It encouraged us to be just as creative as the artist. This time, for this work, we joked around in front of the lens, so the others inside could laugh and watch our antics from inside. We were able to manipulate the art. It was also different every time we interacted with it.
Second, I really enjoyed his time lapsed photography. That work in itself was a whole new art form for itself. It was a film made of photography shots. You could almost call it film animation. Yet, it was documentary, catching the people as they reacted with the work. It was almost a study of frames, much like Robert Breer. You could better understand the whole film if you could experience the frames separately. To me this is a whole new medium, and I could see him making real use of this idea. For once, as I said before, I was inspired. I might even try to do this myself! Here are the ideas I got from the session:
1) Screensavers, to make money
2) Framed screens (I've seen them before) showing recorded video from his time lapsed photography-it's like a live photo- it will engage you over and over every time you see it
3) Installation museum works, recording the camera obscuras and projecting them into a space, so you feel surrounded by the picture and it will not get obscured with bad weather-also easier to show without all the setup work
4) Projecting into spaces with white objects in it, sculptures almost...like you could put several oddly shaped squares in the space and project the camera obscuras that were recorded from all different angles, coating the odd forms
5) Sound could be added to the framed works, to help people sleep or to set a mood for a nice dinner at good restaurants
6) Make time lapsed photography that correlates in theme... maybe even stage objects to come by the lens or people, etc, so that the space reflects and matches what the light sees in the space...them take a photo or a time lapse series and that way it works together instead of being always random
7) Make recorded time lapsed photography sessions of a space several days in a row or longer, then put it all in a gallery space as several recordings, using the dual projector idea, showing the different times side by side so you can compare the differences
8) Another gallery idea, take time lapsed photography of the camera obscuras and put them along the walls and let people walk around the space, experiencing each one separately or being able to walk tot he center and look around at all of them, completely surrounded- some could be live as well...you could have some on the ceiling and floors also, to be completely engaged
9) Make the time lapse photo series and project them one over the other with the dual projection system, with camera obscuras from the same place or closely related places, or completely random places, like a racetrack with galloping horses superimposed over an ocean scene or sky scene, so they look almost like they are galloping in the clouds or in the ocean
10) Have live performers outside as they engage with the viewers inside...make them interact in the space almost like theatre, only in a whole new way...almost like a moving photograph. Could also be done as a theme, the camera obscura happening inside the theatre as the actors act outside. The viewers could watch from the theatre inside but they are not watching the stage, instead the camera obscura outside where everything is ether scripted or improv. Would make a great theme for time lapsed photography.
Awesome stuff awesome! This is true experimental cinema- opening people's eyes to new ways of doing things by true experimentation. Good stuff.
Monday, March 5, 2007
http://www.learningtoloveyoumore.com
Well, I'd like to start off with saying that of all the works we explored today, I liked Brent's the best. I think it's rather cool to be able to say your former TA's work is your favorite out of all the works you are presented in an art class, no matter what medium. Go Brent!! I hope I have time to see his work as installation. For some reason I really like the idea of installations works. I think if I must watch experimental film, it just seems better...perhaps more suited to the genre... if it is seen on a monitor. Why? I'm not sure. I guess my generation is so used to seeing Hollywood film projected, that monitors are now out of date for us in a sense, at least when it comes to art. So to me, in my film generation, the monitor seems more interesting and untouched as art, therefore rendering it more interesting for artistic purposes. Brent's piece was certainly still good to watch in the double projection idea, but I could see it being much more effective as an installation. I could see myself standing between the two screens, having the pictures fill each and seem bigger than they did in class, pounding at me from both sides. I can see myself barraged, looking back and forth, hearing the banging and really getting into it, as if the sound were to attack me in the center. I also think it would look better in a completely dark room, with no projection light. It would seem more jarring and fast.
Then I checked out the "Learning to Love You More" website. I found it very interesting and I wish I had time to do more with it. Maybe once summer comes I can do a more involved one. For now, I settled for a rather simple one...the flash photo under your bed. I keep all of my toiletries under my bed because I have no closet, a tiny room, and among three people only one bathroom, which is also tiny. So I have to cram all my stuff under my bed in baskets. I have my hair stuff (brush, pins, clips, bands, etc) in one handheld basket, and the other two contain my other stuff like makeup, extra contacts, lotions, facewashes, creams, curling iron, blow dryer, fake hair, etc. Behind that I have my old collection of small rubber horses in a plastic bag, as well as things that ended up there randomly. For these pictures I took one of the stuff I have in the baskets, then I pulled them away and showed pictures of what was behind them.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Reactions to Laura Marks
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)