December 3, 2008
Current State of Media
Filmmaking today is flirting with experimentation, but sleeping with the narrative.
The Art of Not Seeing: On Blindness and blindness
http://www.cinema-scope.com/cs36/feat_anderson_blindness.html
In one of the most controversial articles I have encountered on Cinema Scope, Jason Anderson explores various films sharing a common topic- blindness. It is obvious that Anderson has the knowledge and experience with the films he discusses in the article, but unless the reader is familiar with at least one of the films mentioned it might be difficult to follow.
I was also confused by the pace and direction of this article. Anderson begins with an anecdote from “In With Borges” by Alberto Manguel. I was drawn in while reading the opening portion, but started to lose focus when Anderson begins his in depth film discussion. For some reason, many articles I have encountered on Cinema Scope never just provide facts and opinion- I guess that’s not good enough. Instead, I find that many of the authors try to write in a humorous, almost sarcastic tone.
As a reader, I wanted something different out of this article. I wanted Anderson to explore and discuss films about the sightless, but too many words were spent on trying to include so many references. Another aspect of Anderson’s writing that makes it difficult to read was the constant use of hyphens to break up sentences. By chaining together so many different thoughts in one sentence, I found myself lost trying to piece it all together.
However, the biggest positive of the article were the various names of directors to check out. Whenever encountering an article on Cinema Scope, I always try to record the names and eventually watch the work of one of the directors mentioned. This article offers a variety of directors and gives a brief idea of what to expect from their work. Like I said, Anderson is obviously well educated about the films and I respect that tremendously.
This article also works well because of the topic. Films made about the blind or by the blind is a really interesting concept. I had never even considered it, but I am sure many blind people regularly attend the movies. That intrigues me. Early in the article, Anderson talks about Borges impression to the film, “West Side Story.” By paying such close attention to the songs and dialogue, I am sure that Borges experience with the film would be much different than mine.
Mostly, I found this article more inspirational than informative. Instead of reading Jason Anderson’s opinions on these films, I would like to track them down and develop my own theories. Also, this has inspired me to attend a sightless screening and discuss how a film works without the intended visual elements. And I strongly agree with Jason Anderson’s statement at the end of his third paragraph:
“Yes, it’s a small pool, though it may expand exponentially if Iranian director Mohammad Shirvani makes good on a recently announced plan to produce documentaries by seven blind female filmmakers.”
Let’s hope this comes to fruition.
In one of the most controversial articles I have encountered on Cinema Scope, Jason Anderson explores various films sharing a common topic- blindness. It is obvious that Anderson has the knowledge and experience with the films he discusses in the article, but unless the reader is familiar with at least one of the films mentioned it might be difficult to follow.
I was also confused by the pace and direction of this article. Anderson begins with an anecdote from “In With Borges” by Alberto Manguel. I was drawn in while reading the opening portion, but started to lose focus when Anderson begins his in depth film discussion. For some reason, many articles I have encountered on Cinema Scope never just provide facts and opinion- I guess that’s not good enough. Instead, I find that many of the authors try to write in a humorous, almost sarcastic tone.
As a reader, I wanted something different out of this article. I wanted Anderson to explore and discuss films about the sightless, but too many words were spent on trying to include so many references. Another aspect of Anderson’s writing that makes it difficult to read was the constant use of hyphens to break up sentences. By chaining together so many different thoughts in one sentence, I found myself lost trying to piece it all together.
However, the biggest positive of the article were the various names of directors to check out. Whenever encountering an article on Cinema Scope, I always try to record the names and eventually watch the work of one of the directors mentioned. This article offers a variety of directors and gives a brief idea of what to expect from their work. Like I said, Anderson is obviously well educated about the films and I respect that tremendously.
This article also works well because of the topic. Films made about the blind or by the blind is a really interesting concept. I had never even considered it, but I am sure many blind people regularly attend the movies. That intrigues me. Early in the article, Anderson talks about Borges impression to the film, “West Side Story.” By paying such close attention to the songs and dialogue, I am sure that Borges experience with the film would be much different than mine.
Mostly, I found this article more inspirational than informative. Instead of reading Jason Anderson’s opinions on these films, I would like to track them down and develop my own theories. Also, this has inspired me to attend a sightless screening and discuss how a film works without the intended visual elements. And I strongly agree with Jason Anderson’s statement at the end of his third paragraph:
“Yes, it’s a small pool, though it may expand exponentially if Iranian director Mohammad Shirvani makes good on a recently announced plan to produce documentaries by seven blind female filmmakers.”
Let’s hope this comes to fruition.
The Possibility of Music
Instead of being carried away and taken on a mystical journey by an array of images, I have recently turned my attention to the element of sound in various artistic works. Perhaps the most incredible experience I have encountered recently, or ever, was an impromptu jam session featuring Aaron Ximm and the Midwest Phonographers Union. I am still new to the concept of a “soundscape,” but after sampling Aaron Ximm courtesy of Glenn Bach- I was excited for this opportunity.
Prior to the performance, I tried to imagine what sort of instruments or equipment I would see. Except for some decent speakers and (probably) expensive sound software, the equipment was rather basic. Three laptops, each connected to a small soundboard, and one iPod utilized by Aaron himself was all it really took to create this soundscape.
It didn’t take long to figure out what I was in for. Three guys, each with an incredible archive of recordings at hand, attempted to blend and manipulate their recordings to create something random, cohesive, and completely experimental. There were only a few instances when I could connect a single sound to one of the artists, but most of the sounds were lost in the sea of noise.
Like any musical piece, this session included crescendos into louder segments. Even though a large amount of the success is determined by fate, I thought each performer worked to make every contribution an addition to the soundscape. From phones ringing to animal noises, this performance included a wide array of sounds from around the world. I found out after the performance, that Aaron Ximm could connect his recordings to the experience in which he encountered them- that allows his work to double as a memory album.
After the performance there was no doubt in my mind that what I had heard was music. It’s unconventional, unpredictable, and you don’t need a degree in music to understand the theory, but it’s music. After being involved in traditional jam sessions of my own, I remember the smile on the musicians face when the song or piece is working well. I saw that look numerous times during this session.
Another audio experience I found to be immensely inspiring was Martin Arnold’s “Alone. Life Wastes Andy Hardy.” Out of every work I have seen using found footage this semester, this was easily my favorite. Just by looping audio clips from the films of Judy Garland and Micky Rooney, Arnold creates a sound experience that includes rhythm and story.
When the film had finished, it was obvious to me that Arnold is nothing less than a master of manipulation. He was able to craft this piece however he wanted. It could have been longer or shorter, he could emphasize other clips, but the choice was up to him. “Alone. Life Wastes Andy Hardy” is definitely an experimental work, but it is a large contrast to the mission of Aaron Ximm.
Even though a certain amount of editing is done when completing his solo work, Aaron conducts all of his recordings without manipulation, without any say in what the material will be. When he played with the Midwest Phonographers Union that was a total instance of improvisation. No editing or even hearing the sounds before the performance can lead a jam session in difference directions and I doubt the session could ever be duplicated live again.
Martin Arnold is much more methodical in his work. He is putting himself in a position to control the outcome completely. Yes, the sounds and movements of the actors in the film were jerky and sporadic; they never appeared to be random. The most incredible aspect of Arnold’s piece was the use of a story arc with his different clips. I can tell that Aaron Ximm is trying to tell a story with his soundscapes, but he leaves most of the interpretation to the listener.
The two works differ conceptually and in sound genre. Ximm utilizes his recordings and ambient sounds while Arnold took footage from old films. Regardless of where the material came from, each artist was able to create a completely unique experience.
Both Martin Arnold and Aaron Ximm were new to me, but I have taken to both styles and hope to experience more work from them. The most obvious comparison to me is that both artists were able to create music out of material that is so unconventional and uncommon that it is shocking at first listen. The biggest lesson I have learned is that no sound is excluded from the possibility of music.
Prior to the performance, I tried to imagine what sort of instruments or equipment I would see. Except for some decent speakers and (probably) expensive sound software, the equipment was rather basic. Three laptops, each connected to a small soundboard, and one iPod utilized by Aaron himself was all it really took to create this soundscape.
It didn’t take long to figure out what I was in for. Three guys, each with an incredible archive of recordings at hand, attempted to blend and manipulate their recordings to create something random, cohesive, and completely experimental. There were only a few instances when I could connect a single sound to one of the artists, but most of the sounds were lost in the sea of noise.
Like any musical piece, this session included crescendos into louder segments. Even though a large amount of the success is determined by fate, I thought each performer worked to make every contribution an addition to the soundscape. From phones ringing to animal noises, this performance included a wide array of sounds from around the world. I found out after the performance, that Aaron Ximm could connect his recordings to the experience in which he encountered them- that allows his work to double as a memory album.
After the performance there was no doubt in my mind that what I had heard was music. It’s unconventional, unpredictable, and you don’t need a degree in music to understand the theory, but it’s music. After being involved in traditional jam sessions of my own, I remember the smile on the musicians face when the song or piece is working well. I saw that look numerous times during this session.
Another audio experience I found to be immensely inspiring was Martin Arnold’s “Alone. Life Wastes Andy Hardy.” Out of every work I have seen using found footage this semester, this was easily my favorite. Just by looping audio clips from the films of Judy Garland and Micky Rooney, Arnold creates a sound experience that includes rhythm and story.
When the film had finished, it was obvious to me that Arnold is nothing less than a master of manipulation. He was able to craft this piece however he wanted. It could have been longer or shorter, he could emphasize other clips, but the choice was up to him. “Alone. Life Wastes Andy Hardy” is definitely an experimental work, but it is a large contrast to the mission of Aaron Ximm.
Even though a certain amount of editing is done when completing his solo work, Aaron conducts all of his recordings without manipulation, without any say in what the material will be. When he played with the Midwest Phonographers Union that was a total instance of improvisation. No editing or even hearing the sounds before the performance can lead a jam session in difference directions and I doubt the session could ever be duplicated live again.
Martin Arnold is much more methodical in his work. He is putting himself in a position to control the outcome completely. Yes, the sounds and movements of the actors in the film were jerky and sporadic; they never appeared to be random. The most incredible aspect of Arnold’s piece was the use of a story arc with his different clips. I can tell that Aaron Ximm is trying to tell a story with his soundscapes, but he leaves most of the interpretation to the listener.
The two works differ conceptually and in sound genre. Ximm utilizes his recordings and ambient sounds while Arnold took footage from old films. Regardless of where the material came from, each artist was able to create a completely unique experience.
Both Martin Arnold and Aaron Ximm were new to me, but I have taken to both styles and hope to experience more work from them. The most obvious comparison to me is that both artists were able to create music out of material that is so unconventional and uncommon that it is shocking at first listen. The biggest lesson I have learned is that no sound is excluded from the possibility of music.
October 29, 2008
Cinema Scope #2: Damn Dirty Apes: Dead Festivals in the USA
http://www.cinema-scope.com/cs36/col_finn_festivals.html
Jim Finn put together an incredible editorial in the latest edition of Cinema Scope titled, “Damn Dirty Apes: Dead Festivals in the USA.” In this article, Finn talks about three major film festivals that have all gone under. The New York Underground Film Festival, Cinematexas, and Thaw were the festivals that Finn attended during periods of operation. Not only did Finn give me an appreciation of how important these festivals were, but also how important it is that more festivals are born.
The most powerful line in the entire article was towards the end when Finn said that these festivals “helped give all of the filmmakers who screened at them the opportunity to live as humans.” I think this entire article is very timely. Not only does Finn discuss how difficult it is for these festivals to “pay the bills,” but the difficulties created by YouTube and other forums for video distribution. Finn describes specific experiences at each of the festivals, even mentioning Kevin Everson as a filmmaker he discovered at a festival.
Finn does a great job of pulling the reader into the community of filmmakers that can be encountered at a film festival. He even explains how screening for a small audience can be a powerful experience, if the audience is educated. “It didn’t take me long to learn that 20 nerds who see and love your work are equal to or better than 300 who see it and are mildly annoyed.” This was a powerful message for me, because I attend screenings for experimental filmmakers and I always wonder how the minimal turn out affects them.
This article is put together very well and states a good message. If you are a member or claim to be a member of the “film community,” then you owe an awful lot to these small film festivals that never withstand the test of time. Fans should be perpetuating these festivals by doing whatever they can to keep the community strong and the art of film alive.
Jim Finn put together an incredible editorial in the latest edition of Cinema Scope titled, “Damn Dirty Apes: Dead Festivals in the USA.” In this article, Finn talks about three major film festivals that have all gone under. The New York Underground Film Festival, Cinematexas, and Thaw were the festivals that Finn attended during periods of operation. Not only did Finn give me an appreciation of how important these festivals were, but also how important it is that more festivals are born.
The most powerful line in the entire article was towards the end when Finn said that these festivals “helped give all of the filmmakers who screened at them the opportunity to live as humans.” I think this entire article is very timely. Not only does Finn discuss how difficult it is for these festivals to “pay the bills,” but the difficulties created by YouTube and other forums for video distribution. Finn describes specific experiences at each of the festivals, even mentioning Kevin Everson as a filmmaker he discovered at a festival.
Finn does a great job of pulling the reader into the community of filmmakers that can be encountered at a film festival. He even explains how screening for a small audience can be a powerful experience, if the audience is educated. “It didn’t take me long to learn that 20 nerds who see and love your work are equal to or better than 300 who see it and are mildly annoyed.” This was a powerful message for me, because I attend screenings for experimental filmmakers and I always wonder how the minimal turn out affects them.
This article is put together very well and states a good message. If you are a member or claim to be a member of the “film community,” then you owe an awful lot to these small film festivals that never withstand the test of time. Fans should be perpetuating these festivals by doing whatever they can to keep the community strong and the art of film alive.
Cinema Scope #1: Happy-Go-Lucky
http://www.cinema-scope.com/cs36/cur_porton_leigh.html
In the continuing effort to “expand the frame on international cinema,” Cinema Scope often offers reviews and commentary on international films and directors. I stumbled on an article by Richard Porton, in which he discusses the latest film by Mike Leigh, a director from the United Kingdom. After my time of searching and picking through articles, this is the first negative review I have found. Not only does Porton attack Leigh’s latest film, “Happy-Go-Lucky,” he also attacks his personality and intentions.
The mood of the article is established instantly, as Porton calls Leigh a “world-class blowhard.” This is not the only time Porton mentions how much Leigh likes to talk about his work. Most of Porton’s claims in his article are backed up, but it seems to be written in such a personal way. He attacks Leigh’s protagonist, saying she seems more like “a Free Spirit than a believable human being.”
In terms of the writing itself, I felt that Porton tried to be way too clever and coy with his writing. Much of it seemed over-written, wordy, and difficult to follow. Also, Porton includes far too many specific references in this article. This is supposed to be an international publication- but I didn’t feel like my movie experiences were represented very well in this article.
If anything, Porton made me want to look into the work of Mike Leigh. “Audiences familiar with Naked (1993), or the self-parodic All or Nothing (2002), might assume that a certain misanthropy and pessimism— either fairly bracing in the case of Naked or the embodiment of dime store existentialism in All or Nothing— is Leigh’s stock in trade.” In this portion, Porton is giving Leigh credit for what he can do, which ultimately sold the work of Mike Leigh.
After reading the article, I have decided to locate a Mike Leigh film. If Leigh was able to generate this sort of review for his film, I am sure he is slightly controversial in his methods. Like many of the articles I have found through Cinema Scope, I have gained some information on an international director and film. Most of what I read I am discovering for the first time, but I am starting to get an idea of the common thread that runs through all of the articles and ties it all together.
The mood of the article is established instantly, as Porton calls Leigh a “world-class blowhard.” This is not the only time Porton mentions how much Leigh likes to talk about his work. Most of Porton’s claims in his article are backed up, but it seems to be written in such a personal way. He attacks Leigh’s protagonist, saying she seems more like “a Free Spirit than a believable human being.”
In terms of the writing itself, I felt that Porton tried to be way too clever and coy with his writing. Much of it seemed over-written, wordy, and difficult to follow. Also, Porton includes far too many specific references in this article. This is supposed to be an international publication- but I didn’t feel like my movie experiences were represented very well in this article.
If anything, Porton made me want to look into the work of Mike Leigh. “Audiences familiar with Naked (1993), or the self-parodic All or Nothing (2002), might assume that a certain misanthropy and pessimism— either fairly bracing in the case of Naked or the embodiment of dime store existentialism in All or Nothing— is Leigh’s stock in trade.” In this portion, Porton is giving Leigh credit for what he can do, which ultimately sold the work of Mike Leigh.
After reading the article, I have decided to locate a Mike Leigh film. If Leigh was able to generate this sort of review for his film, I am sure he is slightly controversial in his methods. Like many of the articles I have found through Cinema Scope, I have gained some information on an international director and film. Most of what I read I am discovering for the first time, but I am starting to get an idea of the common thread that runs through all of the articles and ties it all together.
"Act/React"
I left the Milwaukee Art Museum a little upset after my experience with Act/React. If watching the DVD in class wouldn’t have spoiled every portion of the exhibit, I think I would have had a much different experience. All of the mystery was gone. All of my opportunities to play and discover were taken away by hearing directly from the artist how they created each piece. Every piece worked just as I expected, but I wish I were coming into the exhibit with a fresh eye.
One of the pieces that I spent a lot of time with was Liz Phillips’ “Echo Evolution.” Unlike some of the other works in the exhibit, the “Echo Evolution” was not as easy to figure out and manipulate. Motion sensors detect movement, which triggers a light on and a sound to occur in the room. I tried to move to different areas in the room to create different sequences of light and sound, but it seemed more random than a predictable pattern. I don’t know what I expected out of this room, but I didn’t feel satisfied with this piece. This room wasn’t as interesting as some of the other pieces, because I feel the person looking at the art has less influence on what will happen.
My favorite work of the exhibit was another piece closed off in a private room. I am referring to the bizarre and sometimes disturbing, “Snow Mirror,” created by Daniel Rozin. This was another piece in the exhibit that I spent a good deal of time with. I was immediately intrigued with this after watching the DVD. I discovered after a while that my reflection in the mirror became clearer as I stood still, without moving my body in the slightest way. I thought some of the visuals created on the screen were breath taking and memorable, as my limbs would blow away like snow if I moved them up or down.
When comparing the two works, “Echo Evolution” and “Snow Mirror,” the first similarity I noticed was the seclusion created by having a private room for each piece. I noticed this with the other pieces closed off in private rooms- it creates a feeling of stepping into another world. By building the walls around the work, it separates the piece from the museum and the other work in the exhibit. When you step into the separate room, you are allowed a more personal experience with the art.
I think a large difference between the two pieces was the visual of the reflection found in “Snow Mirror.” By having the ability to recognize my reflection, I was able to have a closer relationship with the art and identify with the work. When I experienced “Echo Evolution,” I didn’t feel the same connection because I didn’t feel like the piece was acknowledging me like I wanted it to. It was the disconnect from the piece that gave me a feeling I rarely experienced in this exhibit. I felt “Snow Mirror” gave me the opportunity to manipulate and control my experience to an extent, which allowed for more experimentation.
These were just two examples of the work I experienced in the Act/React exhibit. I found the other works of the exhibit to be somewhere in between “Echo Evolution” and “Snow Mirror” in terms of interactivity. I believe the pieces with a more obvious “reflection” provided a more enjoyable experience. I was intrigued with the concept of interactive art and would recommend Act/React to anyone interested in the modern techniques used in art today. I would also recommend not watching the DVD before seeing the exhibit, so the mystery of the art is not compromised.
One of the pieces that I spent a lot of time with was Liz Phillips’ “Echo Evolution.” Unlike some of the other works in the exhibit, the “Echo Evolution” was not as easy to figure out and manipulate. Motion sensors detect movement, which triggers a light on and a sound to occur in the room. I tried to move to different areas in the room to create different sequences of light and sound, but it seemed more random than a predictable pattern. I don’t know what I expected out of this room, but I didn’t feel satisfied with this piece. This room wasn’t as interesting as some of the other pieces, because I feel the person looking at the art has less influence on what will happen.
My favorite work of the exhibit was another piece closed off in a private room. I am referring to the bizarre and sometimes disturbing, “Snow Mirror,” created by Daniel Rozin. This was another piece in the exhibit that I spent a good deal of time with. I was immediately intrigued with this after watching the DVD. I discovered after a while that my reflection in the mirror became clearer as I stood still, without moving my body in the slightest way. I thought some of the visuals created on the screen were breath taking and memorable, as my limbs would blow away like snow if I moved them up or down.
When comparing the two works, “Echo Evolution” and “Snow Mirror,” the first similarity I noticed was the seclusion created by having a private room for each piece. I noticed this with the other pieces closed off in private rooms- it creates a feeling of stepping into another world. By building the walls around the work, it separates the piece from the museum and the other work in the exhibit. When you step into the separate room, you are allowed a more personal experience with the art.
I think a large difference between the two pieces was the visual of the reflection found in “Snow Mirror.” By having the ability to recognize my reflection, I was able to have a closer relationship with the art and identify with the work. When I experienced “Echo Evolution,” I didn’t feel the same connection because I didn’t feel like the piece was acknowledging me like I wanted it to. It was the disconnect from the piece that gave me a feeling I rarely experienced in this exhibit. I felt “Snow Mirror” gave me the opportunity to manipulate and control my experience to an extent, which allowed for more experimentation.
These were just two examples of the work I experienced in the Act/React exhibit. I found the other works of the exhibit to be somewhere in between “Echo Evolution” and “Snow Mirror” in terms of interactivity. I believe the pieces with a more obvious “reflection” provided a more enjoyable experience. I was intrigued with the concept of interactive art and would recommend Act/React to anyone interested in the modern techniques used in art today. I would also recommend not watching the DVD before seeing the exhibit, so the mystery of the art is not compromised.
October 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)