A forum to share and discuss ideas, experiences, questions about cinema, video art, and moving image installation.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The Last Emperor (1987)
Monday, February 27, 2012
DECASIA
Wild Strawberries
Semiotics of the Kitchen (1975)
Monty Python (1969-1983)
I was first surprised by the odd quality of the film. Later I learned that the movie was shot with a color stock then transferred to black and white. I can't really make sense of why they would do that. Apparently this transferral gave the black and white a higher quality, crisper image. But, if the movie attempted to capture the spirit or feeling of old silent films why would they want a hi-def look? I think this film transfer also made the movie look hazy or stuck behind a thin layer of smoke. I wish that there had been more emphasis on the medium itself and richer blacks and brighter whites.
There were several really inspiring shots of people walking on stair cases. The shots included multiple floors of open stair cases on which, in some scenes, there were many people bustling about or just George Valentin or Peppy Miller. The contrast of moods with the repeated motif of stairs (success, failure/falling) were powerful and helped position the two main characters in their diverging career paths (or one's career and their other's unemployment.)
Audition by Takashi Miike
PULP FICTION by Quentin Tarantino
Sunday, February 26, 2012
This film was incredible. It blew me away in every way possible. It was wonderfully shot, the plot was very interesting, and the presentation of things was intriguing and psychologically challenging. On top of that it was all very well acted. In terms of how everything was shot, Bergman had a very nice progression through the whole film. At the start of the film, most of the scenes are very neutrally toned and calm, but as the film gets more ambiguous and the psychological state of its characters becomes questionable, the compositions of each scene becomes more dynamic and the lighting is more dramatic. There is a great point in the film where the nurse character starts to question herself and the film is physically altered in reaction to this. It signals a turning point in the film and I thought it was a great way to visually articulate the psychological state of the characters. I will try not to give away too much as I talk about the way this film is ended too. I think the brilliance is in how ambiguously Bergman ends things. It is never completely clear which character is the persona and which is the "real" person. When I realized that this question would never be answered for me, I was frustrated but also very impressed. I think everyone in our film class must watch this because its not only a great story but also has great examples of ways to visually communicate the psychological content of the film.
Anemic Cinema, 1926 by Marcel Duchamp
This is a very short film, but it was interesting to view because of the image and sound relationship. It clearly shows how a film can be influenced and aided by sound.
Silent "Reduced" Listening Walk
As I walked around or stood in one place for a while, it felt as if sounds were competing with one another. Natural sounds such as the wind, fought with sounds of cars and people. I thought the natural sounds were more relaxing where as noises from the street felt more chaotic and loud.
When just thinking about sounds, they can seem scary without knowing where they are coming from; from looking where the sound comes from.
The sounds I found most interesting where the softer ones, which I could not hear as well. The softer sounds were of wind, and rustling leaves--earthy tones. The more chaotic sounds were of cars, people talking, or walking. These were the mechanical tones that everyone passes by every day.
I think it is interesting to note that most people block out these sounds and listen instead to their own soundtrack instead of the sounds out in the world. I think parts of us want to listen to the sounds but others do not, because they are not natural to us.
Die Hard
This film is directed by John McTiernan and based on a novel from Roderick Thorp. One of the things that got my attention is the use of special effects, specially when it comes to explosions, guns and helicopters. There are explosions and guns all over the place, and a whole building is exploded using dinamite in one scene, at that time in 1988, watching this was remarkable.
I should also mention the great roll made by bruce Willis in this film. I like the fact that the director place them as a strong cop, but not an ultra super hero. He is strong when it comes to his body, but he is very intelligent and clever, so he could face the terrorists situation without being ridiculously place.
Die Hard succeeds is because it presents every challenge McClane has to face realistically and clearly. As the tension mounts, the ordeals for John become increasingly harder. First, it's just a terrorist. Then a whole slew of them. Later, it's the NYPD and even the FBI! Director McTiernan gives the film a good pace and makes the film work by showing that John isn't superhuman; he only uses his brain more than his gun.
Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (1965)
Dance
Dance (A$$) Remix ft. Nick Minaj
(could not find director on artists’ websites or with video)
This music video takes advantage of a lot of the effects that we’re learning about about, so I thought it relevant to analyze. Despite the fact that in all likelihood everything here is digital, much of the aesthetic is derived from analog techniques.
I was particularly impressed by the use of tape lines around 0:50 into it. They line up with druml taps and bring out the rhythm. It makes me wonder if this could be used outside of a music video context. Watching the clip without sound suggests it could. These tape lines show up again at the end of the video, and at this point enhance the idea of out of control inebriation.
I found much of the camera the least effective part of this video. The spinning move, while it did reference drunkenness well, was over used the point where it didn’t mean anything. While yes, it seems the video arches and is at its most drunken towards the end, but this spinning motion is used almost evenly throughout, instead of highlighting the arch, it just beats a dead horse. The most effective camera technique here for conveying inebriation is the out of focus and dirty lens.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
I decided to try and track down some of George Kuchar's stuff because I haven't seen too much of it. This film is a recording of a rehearsal in which Kuchar actually appears in the frame and directs an actress in front of the camera. As she delivers each line, Kuchar asks her to restate each line getting more dramatic and ridiculous each time. Its hysterical and a very interesting representation of direction. I love that Kuchar fully participates with the actress and really pushes the film to be as absurd as possible. One of the highlights is when both Kuchar and the actress throw themselves at a dummy and the dummy's head falls off. It's also comical that Kuchar chose to use a dummy instead of an actual actor. The camera is fixed in one spot for the whole film and the frame adjustments are all made and observed as Kuchar directs the camera man. There are also sometimes jump cuts and a shaky hand held feel. This combined with the bare setting of the rehearsal all give the film a raw, unedited look. This is a great and funny representation of process and I really appreciated it.
Kustom Kar Kommandos & Eaux d'Artifice (Kenneth Anger)
Another Earth
Not only is the plot interesting but the cinematography is not what I expected. The film has little dialogue with a classical score in the background. The little amount of sound adds emotions to the imagery and strengthens their meaning. The story is about another planet that sustains life--it is 'Another Earth'. This gives the story mystery and intrigue, which the sound and image convene as well. I think this is a great film to look at for how sound can add to a film.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
AT SEA by Peter Hutton
Monday, February 20, 2012
8 1/2
I read a brief description of "Capturing the Friedmans" before I actually watched the film. The description of the film paired with the suggestive nature of the title led me to assume it would be a story where a sick and undoubtedly guilty man would be found out and rightfully persecuted for his crimes. What I experienced was vastly different than what I expected. The title is appropriate and to the point: the Friedmans are "captured." However, this hardly refers to their alleged crimes, because it is the chaos defining their struggle with the social and legal systems, and the wounds suffered by an already dysfunctional family which ultimately give the title meaning. By the end of the film, we still may not be sure whether or not Arnold and Jesse are guilty of the heinous crimes they are accused of. The only thing we can really be sure of is that we can't fully trust either side. In the end, we have so many people telling us exactly what took place, yet I was left with no idea who to believe. Andrew Jarecki examines the cases of Arnold and Jesse Friedman from all sides and, by skillfully straddling the line between perception and reality, is able to create a haunting commentary, not about their specific crimes, but rather about the evasive nature of facts.
The Friedmans live in Great Neck, Long Island, an affluent community where social status and its associative symbols reign supreme. Because of this, there is a an heir of competition between families over things like clothing, cars, children's achievements, and the idea that "everybody's kid is a genius." It is the sort of place where nobody could stand to have a black mark on their family name. Because of this, it makes sense that neighbors would be very quick to jump on a family scandal made public. A huge factor in "Capturing the Friedmans" is the role of hysteria associated with crimes of pedophilia in general. Because these are considered some of the worst offenses a person can commit, one might assume that if a person is accused by the police, ample investigation has taken place and the person is likely to be guilty of the crimes. Though by the end of the film, I was left unsure of Arnold and Jesse's guilt or innocence, it was clear that thorough investigation had not taken place before their convictions were made. Even though no forensic evidence was ever discovered to prove one way or another that the alleged molestation had taken place, the community was in an outrage. Arnold and Jesse received death threats, and parents of alleged victims almost seemed to want to believe the allegations because it was easier and more socially acceptable to believe the police than to follow an individual line of reasoning. One father of an alleged victim who is interviewed throughout "Capturing the Friedmans" describes the backlash he and his wife received from the community for concluding on their own that their son had never been molested. Neighbors and parents of Arnold's other students seemed outraged that they had strayed from their communal state-of-mind for fear that they were being foolish by believing the police account of things. Essentially it seemed as if they felt they were being called silly for not attempting to draw their own conclusions and recognizing the possible failings of the legal system.
Whether or not Arnold and Jesse are guilty of their crimes becomes less and less relevant as the film delves into the often unfair and seemingly even extralegal methods employed by the police leading the investigation, as well as the persecution of the two. After the discovery of Arnold's child pornography and his subsequent arrest, the police began to conduct a series of questionable interviews with the students from Arnold's computer class. Detective Francis Galasso and Detective Anthony Sgueglia alternately describe contrasting methods for interviewing the children. Galasso describes the better way to go about it, talking about how children want to please and give the right answer, so the interviewer must be very careful not to ask leading questions or make remarks with any sort of bias or emphasis on right or wrong. Sgueglia, on the other hand, describes a much more dangerous and faulty method, in which questions are phrased in ways like, "Arnold Friedman molested you, didn't he?" This would be followed by the insistence that the police knew that this had happened if the child said "no" or seemed uneasy about answering the questions. One of the greatest faults of this method is that it makes it very unclear whether the children's feelings of uneasiness are created by the trauma associated with being harmed, or by the stern, assumptive tone of the questioning. According to the film, this method of questioning has been known in many cases to provide false and unreliable information.
Even as we are unable to draw any concrete conclusions as to Arnold's or Jesse's guilt, we are flooded with information not just about the conviction and trials but also the inner workings of their family life. As viewers of "Capturing the Friedmans" we are afforded the privilege of reviewing the case not just from outside information, but also from direct interviews of family members as well as recordings of the daily life of the family during the time of the trial. One would think that with this plethora of information we might be able to conclude definitively for ourselves what actually took place. However, the goings-on of the family turn out to be just as confusing as the testimony of the police and really only serve to reveal a dysfunctional dynamic that likely existed long before any accusations were made.
By the End of "Capturing the Friedmans," I found myself just as confused as I was at the beginning. We can acknowledge that Arnold was certainly capable of committing the crimes he was convicted of, yet it also still seems possible that he was framed. Instead of a conviction of guilt or proof of innocence for Arnold and Jesse, I take away from this film a story of a broken family and an increased wariness of the very possible faults and failings of the legal system, the word of which many of us take for granted more often than we should. Andrew Jarecki does a brilliant job of turning focus from the nature and severity of the crimes to the disjointed and often ineffective methods of discovering the truth.
Harold and Maude
Harold and Maude is a film about life and death and the longing for both. Seventeen year old Harold, obsessed with death and finding excitement in attending funerals, meets seventy-nine year old Maude, a woman whose life has been full of travel, art, song, and fabulous adventure. In a matter of a few days, they fall in love, and Maude restores Harold's interest in life as she prepares for her eightieth birthday- a day she seems to have chosen long ago for a special kind of farewell.
I want to comment on the theme of a lack of resolution throughout the film. Many of the scenes are morbid and graphic, yet they are never revistied or expained. Visual cues are given in attempt to lead the viewers interpretation astray for a time, yet they never quite turn out as you'd expect them to.
I find Harold and Maude to be a very visually stimulating film. There are usually several layers of action of some sort to be paid attention to in any given scene. There is a good amount of give and take in terms of this, though, and some scenes are very perfectly made to have only one intense event happening.
Until the end of the film, the scenes are introduced, acted out, and closed. There is very little if any revisting of scences. At the end, however, this shifts- just for the last few minutes. The scenes keep cutting between Harold's car driving, the hospital, back to the car, and so on- this so accurately conveys the emotions of a time like the one that Harold was going through- the feelings of things overlapping, moments caving in on eachother.
This has been such an important film to me, but I don't have much else to say about it on this blog. Please see Harold and Maude, and then find me, and we can talk about it over a cup of coffee. I'd be thrilled to hear what you think. It's a movie that really gets to core of what it means to be alive. I like movies like that.