The part that stood out to me after doing all the readings was Deren's comment regarding fixing the camera in one location and then editing the film to make it look like somebody traveled a great distance immediately. She says, "...I have used the integrity oh a human movement - its continuity of rhythm and pacing- to bind together locations which are otherwise unrelated. This is obviously a use of the time potentialities of film, in that it rest upon the rhythm of movement and upon the fact that two separate locations can be cut together on the strength of that rhythm." (Deren, 136). I believe this is a great editing "optical illusion" that can be used to make stark contrasts while maintaining this potentiality of movement in a fluid motion. My first thoughts were the on-going "multiple doors" gag used so often in slapstick comedies (and also Scooby-Doo). In which people are chasing each other in a hall full of doors and fluidly go from door to door with no problem when logic tells us there would be walls that would interfere with that. This technique provided the audience at first with a "how'd they do that?" but in later years became this on-going gag used for humor. People's development and understanding of film has increased so that it is found humorous and not thought of as this magical wonder anymore. I think many of the techniques used in the past have been altered or read differently nowadays to provide humor. An good example I can think of is wavy dissolve type of effect for a dream sequence. At first, it was this cool serious effect to show that the character is entering this surreal environment but now it's over-used for comedic effect (like in "Wayne's World" as an example).
An example of the door gag.... Click Link!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TX5Gb8xSr8
Another example...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnmoBgfztJQ
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Lydell,
Interesting thoughts on development of video. You state how technology has in a sense, rid of substance. It might just be your awareness of technique. Do you think it makes it more challenging for the viewer to be more engaged when they know the technique? could this become for a critique than an enjoyment? some questions to think about to outline some thoughts on early video vs. new media
Post a Comment