Week 5 - Feb 25th (Reading/internet browsing)

I viewed the website “Learning to Love You More” and read about the assignments. I think this is a great way to force everyday people to become their own authors and create something based on a given guideline or restriction. One of the assignments that grabbed my attention and fed into the idea of “authorship” was the assignment “draw a constellation from someone’s freckles.” This concept makes me wonder, “Who is the real author? The person with the freckles or the person who connected the dots with the freckles?” In many ways the person with the freckles themselves is the author because they are supplying the material that is connected, thus the constellation was already there in theory, just not as apparent. On the other hand, the person that drew the connections of the freckles could be considered the author because before he/she drew the connections it was just a random assortment of dots that the body created. I find it as an interesting debate much like the debate of remix artists. Are they considered artists for using already produced material but by chopping it up in a new way or stamping their name on it, or are they just reproducing something that isn’t their work and credit should be given to the original artist. (I.E. it is the person drawing connections versus the person supplying the freckles).

Week 5 - Feb. 25th (Viewing) - "Author of Piece"

After viewing “Two Dogs and a Ball” I see that the authorship qualities fall greatly upon the person holding the ball off camera. I think this is a blunt demonstration of exactly how the director/cameraman can control the “actors” (in this case dogs). I think this same piece could be viewed as authored by the dogs themselves if the ball wasn’t revealed at the end showing that they in fact were locked in looking at that object held by the director. “One Black/One White” is a better example of how the dogs are more of the authors than that director is. In that film the dogs control what is happening and what they are doing whilst the director is simply observing their actions. This sort of control by the black and white dogs shows more of an author-like quality by the dogs themselves. The dogs fixated on the ball are being completely controlled by the director, who in this case is more of the author.

Feb. Outside Post (Feb. 20th)

For the February post outside of class I attended the Theater screening of the movie "Persepolis." There were two aspects that struck me that I could relate to the readings and screenings we've seen in class. The first aspect was the use of silhouttes and darkened black images all throughout the film. Many times for some of the more violent scenes or just to show background characters with or without emphasis the object was an entirely black image/shadow. This reminded me of the use of lighting/shadow in "Lemon." Just like the shadow in "Lemon" the darkened images helped either add emphasis to the character in focus or was used to emphasize that particular image itself. One prime example I remember was the shadowed tanks as they rolled in during a battle scene for a war. The second aspect that struck me was the use of a musical within the film. It is a short scene but the main character has an "Eye of the Tiger" montage to which she sings the lyrics in english. This musical interlude is somewhat laughable and reminds me Althea Thauberger's works. This musical caught me by surprise just like the opera style singing in "A Memory Lasts Forever." The debatable question however, is "Was Thauberger's singing within the film supposed to be intentionally funny?" I don't think it was, while I believe the "Persepolis" montage was supposed to be intentionally humorous. Either way that break from the structure of the film reminded me of Thauberger's work.

Week 4 - Feb 18th (Reading)

After reading about Althea Thauberger one main point kept arising in my head. The fact that her work is a voice of the ordinary girl reaching out to millions is what stood out in my head. The lines “They are ordinary. They are like us, and yet they are speaking subjects, empowered to tell what they have to tell. If we can empathize with them, if we can be moved, we must acknowledge that we too, have the power to move.” I think this line best demonstrates Thauberger’s appeal and gives a good insight to how her work differs from much of the work seen in today’s world. She keeps things simple and forces the viewer to relate to the characters in a matter to which it is believable. While adding a musical touch may sway some viewers into thinking it’s a satire, I believe she is just touching upon the old forms to which emotion was shown. Early on before tv and movies, people watched plays, theater performances, and operas. I think (especially “A Memory Lasts Forever”) is a comment on the old form of expressing emotion through the use of a musical and memory of an event that happened to her. I think because it was done on a reasonable budget and with unknown actors it appears laughable because we are so used to the big-budget fake realism. I think that in a sense Thauberger’s portrayal is more realistic but is just misconstrued as something that is unintentionally funny. I think too many people have widely seen satires so that is their impression of the film when in fact it is actually touching a upon a realistic event in the form of old means. I view this piece as an “internet opera.” A modern empathetic take on an old form.

Week 4 - Feb. 18th (Viewing)

Althea Thauberger as a guest displaying parts of her work was really interesting. While the debate over whether she intentionally made certain parts of her films with satire or a hint of comedy goes on, and is interpreted differently by different people, I’d like to point out how I interpreted her work. The first film “Not Afraid to Die,” was what I thought an interpretation on the notion of people being photographed. I continually had this idea in my head as the film went on in its “photographic” still-life style, that the camera was killing her (or at least that’s what she thought). It made me think of the early days of taking photographs and how some people (such as Indian tribes) thought that taking a photograph of someone was like stealing their soul. As the girl sat in front of the camera just staring or acting casually I felt that this girl was presenting herself to the camera because she isn’t afraid of her soul being taken away. I especially thought this when the Althea’s solo came into the mix furthering this notion that the girl “isn’t afraid to die” by sitting in front of the camera, thus stealing her soul (killing her). So this statement is the girl’s way of being courageous and bravely attempting to do something that is thought of as risky or threatening.

In “Songstress” I couldn’t help but get this music video feel. Even after Althea said, “this is not a comment on music videos” I felt like it was. However, there were a few key differences that influenced me away from thinking of it in a more music video sense. 1) There was little to no editing. The whole song played through in one camera take, (except one time) which is remarkably different from most music videos. 2) The performances seemed very improvised and not planned out. While some music videos are like this many aren’t. 3) The camera never moves. It was straight shooting no effects or technique. So while it may stray away from a music video feel, the music being played along with dancing and lip-syncing still brought that feel to the plate. In my mind, I view it as a “reality tv version of a music video.” The camera being fixed and in one take reminded me of the typical “confessionals” in most reality tv series. I think the fixed camera was used in this fashion to give the performer that confessional type of meaning to their work as they lip-synched. I think this was a great way to have the artist give their voice into the film. It also showed that these were up-and-coming artists that haven’t quite made it yet. It was a low-key video, for a low-key artist that was very personalized.

Week 3 - Feb. 11th (Reading)

After reading about (and witnessing in class a representation) Acconci's "Step Piece," my main thoughts/questions (like probably anyone/everyone that has witnessed this) was; is this art? I see a man stepping up and down on a stool. How is this art? What is the purpose trying to be demonstrated by this exercise? While I'm not entirely sure (as if anyone is) I think it can be art. I think if Acconci wants it to be art, then it is art. Acconci is putting hard work (well work) into this demonstration and attributes of the performance can be analyzed into the broader spectrum of things. For instance, I could view this demonstration as a metaphor for human struggle in everyday life. Every day humans continually do the same redundant things over and over again. We get up in the morning and follow a routine. Stepping up and down is like a comment on the human ritualistic redundancies that we continually do. That's how I viewed it anyways, but it can be argued otherwise. Which I'm sure will have its own validity.

Week 3 - Feb. 11th (Screening)

The screenings all dealing with the idea of deadpan were interesting. My intial response to "Mirror" was "why did Morris decided to use a mirror as a focal point/eye instead of just showing the scenery with the camera?" The entire picture was seen through the reflection of the mirror. Did this reflection have a deeper meaning as to how the viewer sees things? Was it a comment on how the audience views what the camera lens films and by using the reflective nature as a way to tease or bring light to a different way of seeing? Why did Morris show the reflection of the camera in the mirror briefly then? I think the use of the mirror is a direct comment as to how the viewer sees things.

"Lemon" the 2nd film we watched reminded me (like many other students) of a lunar/solar eclipse. It also reminded me of a sponge or paper towel soaking up water (relating to how the lemon seemed to be soaking up light with the movement of the lighting). The shadow on the lemon was like the water as it was absorbed. I think Frampton also made good used of the close-up to enhance the intricate details of the lemon. The texture was amazing and after staring at it awhile I even began to imagine objects (of human form) within the yellow and white of the lemon. This deadpan imagery of the lemon makes me wonder what was the purpose of the dedication? Was in paying homage in some way?

The best example of the deadpan idea I thought was exemplified in "Semiotics of the Kitchen." My immediate thoughts were "okay, she's saying the alphabet, like a children's show would." However, as she got further along a dark side (through the deadpan performance and actions) became much more apparent. Slashing the knife or pounding the meat tenderizer gave me the idea that this was a comment on the stereotypes of housewives and being "in the kitchen." The deadpan performance really made it clear that she didn't want to be in the kitchen, but still she went through with her rutine, like many stereotypical housewives do. The deadpan performance changed how I intially viewed this film to a much darker (even humorous) view. I believe each film had this quality of using the deadpan performance to change how the viewer sees things from their first impression or pre-conceived notion.

Week 2 - Feb. 4th Reading

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

Week 2 - Feb. 4th Screening "Pumpkins"

To start off with I wanted to make note of the amazing use of stop motion animation in Cohl's "Great Pumpkin Race." Although it's noticeable that stop motion was used it was still somewhat seamless and believable to the eye. During the entire picture I felt like these were magical pumpkins that could climb buildings and go over railings. This "magic" quality to the pumpkins gave me humor seeing as I knew that logically these pumpkins can't roll forever (let alone climb over objects and go through chimneys). So through the creative technical use of stop motion animation (along with reversing the film) Cohl made this entire little story believable but at the same time humorous because of the logic behind what was going on. My main question from seeing this film however, was "What is so important about these pumpkins that all of these people chase after them with strenuous effort?" My theory, as demonstrated by the pumpkin's ability to jump over railings etc. is that these are in fact magical pumpkins. It makes more sense as to why these characters tried so hard to catch the pumpkins. Wouldn't you try hard to catch a magical pumpkin?