Response - April 28th - Viewing

I believe that “Duck Soup” is a narrative but “The Way Things Go” is not. While “Duck Soup” may seem like a series of gags that just pop up continuously throughout the film. I feel that “Duck Soup” had enough of a loose narrative and story (be it anarchist, chaotic, or interrupted) it still had a semi-logical A to B structure. Yes, the gags interrupt the narrative, but there is a definite beginning, middle, and end. Its intervention from the narrative structure (i.e. gags) is more structured like a cartoon in which anything can happen for any reason. Cartoons still maintain a narrative structure with bizarre, implausible gags why can’t a live action film accomplish the same thing?

I think that “The Way Things Go” however, is not a narrative. I see it structured more like A to B in small segments but not as a whole picture. Why, because there is no pay off at the end of the film. If the film concluded with reasoning and purpose that this Rube Goldberg-like contraption had then I can view it as a structured narrative. Instead it just feels unfinished (no ending). The broad structure of the film starts A but never finishes with B. (Yes, there are A to B segments within the film, but the broad structure never finishes that thought) I don’t see the two films as being very similar because of this broad scheme of structure. If “The Way Things Go” had a pay off ending (more like “Duck Soup”) then I would see them as being more similar.

Response - April 21st viewing

My first reaction to the viewing was to the viewing of the “STEW” cable access channel. I found it absolutely hilarious what these guys were doing to intervene with the public by controlling the airwaves of this particular channel. I found it as a great method of intervention because it forces the viewing to step aside from how they normally view television programs and interact in this sort of farce or parody of regularly scheduled type shows. Specifically they parody (or transform to their own mold) the “home shopping” or infomercial type of programs that have viewers call in. This parody (like having a caller play cards as the 4th person in a card game) is a great invention and comment on how these call in shows are somewhat ridiculous. They take events that you would never think would make it on the air and televise it with viewer interaction, thus intervening in their lives. Using a Quija board on air to answer people’s questions (with some viewers taking it seriously) is a great example of how this intervention (which is basically a giant joke) can be misconstrued by the viewers by the mere idea that “what’s on the tv has a certain sense of reality/authenticity to it.”

Going along those lines, I believe the “Media Burn” film sports that same type of idea. It’s a great intervention and comment on how the media feeds the public and sort of controls them by this sense of authenticity when in actuality the facts may not entirely be authentic or true. It may be biased or slanted. The intervention of crashing a car through the televisions helps demonstrate how biased and slanted the media has become and how it needs to be reconstructed and freshened up (like rejuvenating a prairie by a controlled burn) Thus, the title “Media Burn.” However, the Media Burn idea relies on the very thing they are trying to comment on (the media) to send out the message. It is a paradox that is very intriguing and witty. My question is, “Why would you send a message denouncing something through that very method which is being denounced?” Doesn’t that kind of conflict the point trying to be made? Also, (this is minor) but I think if I were trying to send the message of denouncing the current media, I would use images of the media on the televisions instead of having them turned off/blank. A blank tv is actually in favor of the message they are trying to create. Destroying a blank tv is pointless. It’s the media they are trying to destroy/change not the tv itself. However, I can understand that the tv is merely a symbol that conveys the media message, but I think it would have been stronger if the televisions had images displaying the media.

April 15th Outside Viewing - Craig Baldwin

After viewing the Craig Baldwin film "Mock Up on Mu" I was amazed. The Meticulous nature of using found footage to tell this wonderfully complicated narrative of real people in a fictional context (although during the Q and A Baldwin claimed it was based on a true story). The most remarkable part was the editing of the found footage and having it both further the story and add in depth curiosity to what was being shown and where did he find that certain image. I found myself trying to guess which film Baldwin had taken the certain image from (Most often unsuccessfully). In this very way I believe that Baldwin’s creation relates to being an intervention art. By using pop culture references as well as real people it forces the viewer to analyze where these references are coming from and create a higher awareness in relation to the narrative. Whether the narrative is true or valid or not I found it giving a creative proposition and opinion to a under-heard story of Scientology. People hear about Scientology all the time but don’t know much of what it really stands for or is. Baldwin creatively voices his take on the matter. In this sense Baldwin is intervening and crafting his own “fictional” narrative based on contexts real in nature (to a degree). I also wondered while watching this film about copyright laws and policies versus using copyrighted material for parody and artistic expression. Many of the images shown I guarantee were copyrighted and yet Baldwin used them. How did he get away with that? Either way it was a great artistic achievement especially through searching out these hidden gems of clips and editing them together. I could easily tell that continuity was broken (having different actors play the same role) but because of the way it was edited I went with it and it never bothered me. I think that achievement is a huge audience intervention and in itself is amazing.

Response April 14th - Sonic Outlaws

For this week's blog response I choose the "Barbie Liberation Organization."

Fact 1) The BLO bought and then took apart Barbie and G.I. Joe dolls that had voice capabilities and switched the "insides" thus producing changed stereotyped voices in each doll. They returned them to the store shelves where they were bought by the public.

Fact 2) The target/goal of this action was to change how the public views gender stereotypes as well as a comment on superficial consumerism. This process of "commerce jamming" was to send a message to the public in a clever way to get their attention (very much an intervention).

Fact 3)

PLO - Work in progress

Response - April 7th (viewing)

After viewing “Love’s Refrain” my quantitative evaluation revealed to me that the film was about the heat (hotness or coldness) of color. Every shot seemed to either have a hot or cold feel to it expressed in reds or oranges or cool blues. Was it helpful in advancing my understanding of the film? Maybe, I’m not exactly sure why the auteur chose this course of action but I would like to think it represents the hot and coldness of love (basing that observation off of the title of the film). In this way it does take you into an understanding of the film. I think through this relation and use of patterns and reflected imagery it marks a playful gleam at the little beautiful observations in life. The heat of the particular shot helps emphasize this beauty whether it is a subtle green for the grass or hot orange reflection this heat corresponds to the concept of love being based of the little things in life. I think Kevin’s observation for the film is valid (to a degree), but if that is valid then theoretically every film is about a projector sound if it can be heard. Thus, every film that is projected is about tiny celluloid frames being seen. I think this is stretching the concept a bit thin and reaching out too far. If the projector was functioning other than what it is normally built to do or playing variations of sounds I think it is more valid, but if it’s just doing what it is intended to do I think saying the film was about the projector sound is a stretch. I think that the sound of the projector really doesn’t relate to the film at all and is much like a person coughing or sneezing during the film. It’s just an outside sound that happens to be going on during the film. If the projector sound was recorded and tampered with though, then I think it relates completely since it was the artist’s decision to use that sample of sound. So basically what I’m saying is that the sound of the projector can be valid if it was recorded and used, but if it is just the machine functioning how it normally functions it is less valid and relates less to the piece.

Response - March 31st (Viewing)

After viewing Benning’s mathematical demonstration my immediate thoughts (like many people in the class) were, “how does this apply to filmmaking?” While I had some ideas it didn’t entirely make sense until I thought about it more after the performance and during the group discussions. One great point brought up was that after a certain point in math it becomes more of an intellectual curiosity than a proven thing. Benning’s demonstration of infinity and imaginary numbers were a great example of that. Like math filmmaking (and art in general) is all about theories and concepts that aren’t always totally solid and are sometimes more abstract in terms of thinking. Sometimes in order to try and understand something there needs to be an abstract idea presented because there is no solid explanation in life. That makes me ponder about life’s mysteries and how the human culture uses abstractions to explain questions they don’t know how to answer. Take religion or the concept of God for example. As humans we don’t know how things came to be or makes the world tick, so we use abstract ideas with logical explanations (well sometimes logical) to explain what we don’t know. In many ways math and filmmaking do the exact same thing. They are the explorations into discovering the hidden abstract ideas that we are trying to solve. All this pondering makes me think of the movie “Pi.” The contemplation that math is the solution to all of life’s mysteries and that there is some interconnection between everything (i.e. mathematical beauty/symmetry in leaves and nature) helps further this notion that Benning was presenting. Often Benning would stop and say something like “look at the symmetry in the equation, isn’t it beautiful.” I believe there is a great connection between math and filmmaking (and life for that matter) and Benning’s demonstration helped exemplify that.

The demonstration itself also made me think of the concept of intervention art and live performance. Each equation was like a new chapter and concept being illustrated like in a performance. Which made me wonder, “isn’t all teaching a form of performance art?” I mean think about it every chalkboard demonstration is partially rehearsed (sometimes spur of the moment) but it has a background to it. It’s presenting a concept and forcing the on looker to think about what is being presented. (Whether abstract or not) Each equation is fresh and new even if it turns out the same (do too the formulas of math). This freshness is shown because mistakes happen altering the performance and adding new depth and possibility to what is happening. Either way teaching is a performance and an intervention into the on looker’s life and Benning helped demonstrate that concept to me.

Reponse - March 31st (Reading/discussion)

After reading MacDonald’s article on James Benning one line stood out the most to me as I connected it to his work and all the discussions revolving around his work. “Probably no filmmaker has been more involved with exploring and documenting the American landscape and cityscape than Benning” (MacDonald, 220). There have been tons and tons of documentaries of the American landscape/cityscape but how true to detail are they? Even the documentaries of wildlife and nature shows put a narrative aspect to the film to add entertainment. Benning is a purist and purely documents in a more observational quality. Documenting the same place over different periods of time or of only trains going by with no narrative aspect help define this statement. Instead of trying to capture some action and then transform it into some story Benning takes the small (less noticeable) things and brings them into the light. It makes me think of the tag line to the film “American Beauty” which is “…look closer.” Benning is the epitome of looking closer and finding the beauty in observation. As I heard about Benning’s class and how he takes students out in random places to observe I thought this truly is what exploring a landscape/cityscape is all about. Immersing yourself in your surroundings and finding all the little things you wouldn’t normally notice. In this sense it’s the little things that create the big picture. I believe as a filmmaker one should aspire to showing the audience a concept, idea, or observation new and fresh that sheds new light to something. Finding the little things in life is exactly the right way to do so.