1. As I watched Disappearing Music for Face I tried to figure out where the interest in the film was. Since the film was so long and moved very slow I was trying to understand what was interesting about the film. I noticed a few things that I found rather interesting about the film. Even though the film was moving at such a slow pace if you took your eyes off it for even a few seconds the image would be different in a way. I noticed how the teeth started to disappear and then the shadow on the corner of the mouth also changed and moved shapes. I thought it was interesting seeing something we normally see as an every day moment that usually takes only a second, last over the length of a few minutes. I also thought it was interesting how much it changes which we don't normally see when viewing it in normal time.
2. In Visionary Film there is nothing about Fluxus films at all. I think Sitney's idea of Avant-Garde film is that they show a piece of the human mind, which he may consider the Fluxus films not to do. He may think the Fluxus films merely portray the image rather than delve into the reasons behind why the artist would put that image on there.
3. (More coming as soon as I am able to get the video working!!!)
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Response To Reading 2
1. Window Water Baby Moving bothers me just a bit. I watched it for the second time in class and I just can’t handle the blood and the actual visual of giving birth. It makes me super squeamish. The fact that they repeated some of those things also made me not like it as much. Now I do understand his reasons for making the film, but I think since I’ve never experienced giving birth, being pregnant, or even wanting a baby, I don’t understand his reasons for repeating it.
2. Sitney argues that synecdoche and ellipsis both play a major role in The End. Synecdoche is a part of a whole. The End goes through the lives of people in immediate doom. The scenes of the film all connect with each other, but we are shown in parts the different characters of the film.
3. Both Conner and Maclaine share the ideas of apocalyptic despair, but Conner is not naïve about it.
4. The people who were against Brakhage and Anger’s films thought that Brakhage and Anger were disrespecting film as an artform. They thought that Brakhage and Anger were not being serious about film and were making film into a joke.
5. Film was really easy to be reproduced and distributed. It could be produced by the yard.
6. Slow included minimalist works- Nam June Paik, Peter Moore.
Fast- George Maciunas, Wolf Vostell, Eric Andersen.
7. Fluxus instead of making personal films instead made more institutional, functional, and minimalist films.
8. Zen for Film "liberated the viewer from manipulations of commercial and alternate cinema." It presented the physical support of the camera which was blank celluloid.
2. Sitney argues that synecdoche and ellipsis both play a major role in The End. Synecdoche is a part of a whole. The End goes through the lives of people in immediate doom. The scenes of the film all connect with each other, but we are shown in parts the different characters of the film.
3. Both Conner and Maclaine share the ideas of apocalyptic despair, but Conner is not naïve about it.
4. The people who were against Brakhage and Anger’s films thought that Brakhage and Anger were disrespecting film as an artform. They thought that Brakhage and Anger were not being serious about film and were making film into a joke.
5. Film was really easy to be reproduced and distributed. It could be produced by the yard.
6. Slow included minimalist works- Nam June Paik, Peter Moore.
Fast- George Maciunas, Wolf Vostell, Eric Andersen.
7. Fluxus instead of making personal films instead made more institutional, functional, and minimalist films.
8. Zen for Film "liberated the viewer from manipulations of commercial and alternate cinema." It presented the physical support of the camera which was blank celluloid.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Response To Reading 1
1. These films are centered around dream, ritual, dance, and sexual metaphor. Sitney takes a section of these films based around Dreams and calls them Trance films.
2. Sitney describes imagist structure films as being similar to the Imagism movement in poetry. He basically explains that these films concentrate on one action or movement, and everything else introduced in the film goes around the essential action. In Choreography it seems like everything is building up to the jump at the end. The dancer seems to just be winding up and winding up until finally he takes a long leap. The film is slowed down at parts and it seems like it’s just taking a moment in time and draws it out to be a film centered around that one action.
3. I think I got for the most part the same understanding as him, but I think he may have gone a little deeper than I did. Granted he has probably watched the film a lot more than I have, so he probably has a lot more to get out of it by watching it more than once around. My impression was that she felt trapped and bored because of all the repetitive shots that were also slowed down in the party scene. Also the fact that in the end the person drowns gave me the impression that she felt suffocated by her life.
4. Sitney is saying that Angry and Deren both understood the relationship the camera had with its subject. They both had an open mind for what the camera could capture and create.
5. Sitney believes the central tension of the film rests on the Magus’ resolution and becoming a man made god. Personally I didn’t see this at all. I had a hard time understanding what each character was, and the length of the film made me even more confused as to what was going on. I don’t think I really saw the same result as Sitney has. Again, he’s probably watched the film many more times than I have and he understands it a lot more than I do.
6. A lyrical film makes the film maker the protagonist of the film. The images of the film are through his eyes. It gives us a sense of how he is reacting to his vision. Lyrical films are full of movement either camera or editing.
7. Hard and Soft montage is explained my Sitney is the collisions of shots as well as the blending of others. Camera movements or a drift of colors will signal a significant transistion. In Aniticipation of the Night the collision of night and day shots create Hard and soft montage.
8. When Brakhage became a film maker he decided to throw away his eye glasses. He claimed to see through his eyes, with his eyes, and even the electrical patterns on the surface of his eyes. (This guy sounds awesome I can’t wait to write about him!)
9. Brakhage made his films very abstract by distorting the image with fast moving cameras, edits, and covering the film with paint and scratches.
10. Dog Star Man is part of the Romanticism movement and describes the birth of consciousness, cycle of seasons, man’s struggle with nature, and sexual balance. Emerson, Whitman, and Dickinson are three of the writers associated with the Romanticism movement.
2. Sitney describes imagist structure films as being similar to the Imagism movement in poetry. He basically explains that these films concentrate on one action or movement, and everything else introduced in the film goes around the essential action. In Choreography it seems like everything is building up to the jump at the end. The dancer seems to just be winding up and winding up until finally he takes a long leap. The film is slowed down at parts and it seems like it’s just taking a moment in time and draws it out to be a film centered around that one action.
3. I think I got for the most part the same understanding as him, but I think he may have gone a little deeper than I did. Granted he has probably watched the film a lot more than I have, so he probably has a lot more to get out of it by watching it more than once around. My impression was that she felt trapped and bored because of all the repetitive shots that were also slowed down in the party scene. Also the fact that in the end the person drowns gave me the impression that she felt suffocated by her life.
4. Sitney is saying that Angry and Deren both understood the relationship the camera had with its subject. They both had an open mind for what the camera could capture and create.
5. Sitney believes the central tension of the film rests on the Magus’ resolution and becoming a man made god. Personally I didn’t see this at all. I had a hard time understanding what each character was, and the length of the film made me even more confused as to what was going on. I don’t think I really saw the same result as Sitney has. Again, he’s probably watched the film many more times than I have and he understands it a lot more than I do.
6. A lyrical film makes the film maker the protagonist of the film. The images of the film are through his eyes. It gives us a sense of how he is reacting to his vision. Lyrical films are full of movement either camera or editing.
7. Hard and Soft montage is explained my Sitney is the collisions of shots as well as the blending of others. Camera movements or a drift of colors will signal a significant transistion. In Aniticipation of the Night the collision of night and day shots create Hard and soft montage.
8. When Brakhage became a film maker he decided to throw away his eye glasses. He claimed to see through his eyes, with his eyes, and even the electrical patterns on the surface of his eyes. (This guy sounds awesome I can’t wait to write about him!)
9. Brakhage made his films very abstract by distorting the image with fast moving cameras, edits, and covering the film with paint and scratches.
10. Dog Star Man is part of the Romanticism movement and describes the birth of consciousness, cycle of seasons, man’s struggle with nature, and sexual balance. Emerson, Whitman, and Dickinson are three of the writers associated with the Romanticism movement.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Response To Anger Films: Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome
So my imidiate reaction to Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome is that it is WAY TOO LONG! Though the colors and visuals were very interesting at times, I did not like how repetative the entire film was. As I was watching I just kept thinking to myself "Okay I've already seen this, I get the picture." It really just got annoying after a while. Since I didn't really understand the context of the different scenes maybe I didn't understand it as well as I would have if I had understood them. I just thought that the film was really long and repetitive which made me really bored. Yes the visuals were nice, but I needed something more. I didn't really connect the scenes very well. To me it just looked like someone's acid trip. Maybe if I understood his reasoning for creating the film I would have liked it better. Also his other film Fireworks I found to be a little disturbing. There were a few images in there that I really had a hard time watching. Even though I knew why he had made the film and what he was trying to say, I still was having a hard time making the connection to what he was trying to say. I think with both of his films I just had a hard time understanding his point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)