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.
October 29, 2008
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
"Traces of the Wild: The Films of Robert Schaller"
The exhibition given by Robert Schaller was one of the most labor-intensive screenings I have ever had the opportunity to experience. “Traces of the Wild,” the title and theme of the evening, introduced me to an array of different images and techniques. However, the intense labor that blew me away could not be directly seen projected onto the screen. It was the masterful work of Robert Schaller himself, constantly adjusting the projectors during his films so the images would line up correctly.
Never before have I seen an artist or director manipulate his work during a screening. This means that no matter how similar the films may appear when you see them, every screening of his work is unique or lined up just a hair differently. I could see the exact same presentation at another theatre, but walk out with a different feeling because of Robert’s responsibility during the screening.
The presence of Robert behind the projectors during the screening made me thankful that nearly all of his films were silent. Instead of the traditional silent film atmosphere, the sounds of the projectors and Robert’s moving, working, and adjusting acted as the orchestration to his work. The steam of consciousness of the images on the screen paired with the mechanical noises coming from Robert Schaller created an appropriate environment.
My favorite film of the night, “My Life as a Bee,” was very similar to a film we watched in class. In fact, I would love to see “My Life as a Bee” shown with Stan Brakhage’s “Mothlight” as two films with a similar focus. In both works, the filmmaker’s primary goal is to simulate the flight and encounters of each insect in their lives. Even from the opening frames, each film displays the title written or painted in human handwriting. To me, that immediately established that both films were extremely “hands on” in production and post-production.
The beauty was undeniable in each of the films. Even though “Mothlight” is much darker visually and conceptually, it is still extraordinary to watch. “My Life as a Bee” is much brighter and more playful, but still evokes a similar feeling. The concept for both films exceeds any notion I may have had with experimental films. How the life of an insect can be so vividly portrayed through an incoherent combination of images is breathtaking.
Nature is obviously a large muse for Robert Schaller. In the majority of his films, his connections and appreciation for trees, animals, and weather is highly represented. That could be the biggest lesson I have learned through this class and screenings such as Robert Schaller’s. It’s the process filmmakers go through to incorporate their passions in a completely original and sometimes unconventional way.
Whether it is digitally organizing memories from Baghdad or relying on the work of multiple projectors, it is a large responsibility of a filmmaker to tell a story that is completely new to audiences. Every experience in life is unique and we all have the potential to interpret something completely different.
Never before have I seen an artist or director manipulate his work during a screening. This means that no matter how similar the films may appear when you see them, every screening of his work is unique or lined up just a hair differently. I could see the exact same presentation at another theatre, but walk out with a different feeling because of Robert’s responsibility during the screening.
The presence of Robert behind the projectors during the screening made me thankful that nearly all of his films were silent. Instead of the traditional silent film atmosphere, the sounds of the projectors and Robert’s moving, working, and adjusting acted as the orchestration to his work. The steam of consciousness of the images on the screen paired with the mechanical noises coming from Robert Schaller created an appropriate environment.
My favorite film of the night, “My Life as a Bee,” was very similar to a film we watched in class. In fact, I would love to see “My Life as a Bee” shown with Stan Brakhage’s “Mothlight” as two films with a similar focus. In both works, the filmmaker’s primary goal is to simulate the flight and encounters of each insect in their lives. Even from the opening frames, each film displays the title written or painted in human handwriting. To me, that immediately established that both films were extremely “hands on” in production and post-production.
The beauty was undeniable in each of the films. Even though “Mothlight” is much darker visually and conceptually, it is still extraordinary to watch. “My Life as a Bee” is much brighter and more playful, but still evokes a similar feeling. The concept for both films exceeds any notion I may have had with experimental films. How the life of an insect can be so vividly portrayed through an incoherent combination of images is breathtaking.
Nature is obviously a large muse for Robert Schaller. In the majority of his films, his connections and appreciation for trees, animals, and weather is highly represented. That could be the biggest lesson I have learned through this class and screenings such as Robert Schaller’s. It’s the process filmmakers go through to incorporate their passions in a completely original and sometimes unconventional way.
Whether it is digitally organizing memories from Baghdad or relying on the work of multiple projectors, it is a large responsibility of a filmmaker to tell a story that is completely new to audiences. Every experience in life is unique and we all have the potential to interpret something completely different.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)