Stop. Look. Go.

This week I watched some spectacular films that involved a lot of active participation. I watched Le Retour a raison, Emak-Bakia, Entr'acte, Symphonie Diagonale, Blood of the Poet, Anemic Cinema, and Ballet Mechanique.
The two films by Man Ray, Le Retour á Raison (1923) and Emak-Bakia (1926), were beautiful and well-crafted. Out of the bunch, I find his extremely interesting because it seems as if he puts everything but the kitchen sink in his films. Of course, there will always be those who looks only at technique, who ask 'how', while others of a more curious nature will as 'why.' Personally, I have always perferred inspiration to information. [Man Ray]
Both films have some of the same footage in it. which makes me wonder if he recycles a lot of his films into the new ones. Out of the two of them, I think that Emak-Bakia is the most interesting. Not just because it's longer and has more stuff, but because I think it's clever and there is more thought put into the work. My absolute favorite part is the animation of the stick figure jumping to each pose. There are lines on the film and he matches up with all of them. I think that Man Ray really liked geometric shapes and the way some ransom things looked on screen. His films are almost hypnotizing. He revolves many objects on the screen, and the things that are filmed are just so pretty that you can't look away.

I paint what cannot be photographed, that which comes from the imagination or from dreams, or from an unconscious drive. [Man Ray]

Another film i thought to be interesting is René Clair's Entr'acte. My favorite part of the entire film was the slow motion run of the funeral procession. There are parts in this film that don't make sense, and that is one of them. But, I like that it doesn't make sense. It's a film with a whole bunch of things thrown at it which serves the purpose well because the title means "between the acts." These can be assembled in any order to make sense of nothing.
I appreciated Blood of the Poet. It was very interesting how they wanted to trick the audience. It reminded me of some Melies films, except more thought out and kinda clever. For example, when the mirror turns into the pool leading the poet into the hallway. Superimposition of key items were also used heavily in this film. There is more depth in this film as well. For example, the death of the boy leading to the card table over top. What does this mean? That no one notices? That it's not important? That we as humans are so cruel that we play cards directly overtop the corpse of a child and use his body to hide the cheating? I don't know, but i like how this film makes you think and wonder about what goes on in the mind of the creator.
All in all, these films are very profound and filled with exciting and interesting objects. To fully appreciate these films, I think that you would have to watch them more than once. There is so much that you could miss because you're looking at one thing and also there is so much that you miss because images lead into other images for a reason. What is the reason?

(I'm Going On) STRIKE!

Just kidding. Well, maybe. If I have to watch a cow get slaughtered one more time...

However, I did have a better experience watching this film when I was in the mindset of this class. I always like to go into a film with an open mind, and in this case, I opened my mind to how the film pushed forward. I asked myself: what did this film do? What was its motive? Its message?When watching it before, I was lost in the visual imagery of the film. For example, the clever usage of shapes to create transitions between scenes. There were also many elaborate sets that caught my attention.

There was a scene in the beginning of the film where I put more thought into. It fades into a man in boots walking backwards in the water which reveals the smokestacks of the factory. More workers start walking backwards and point at the man or behind them. This scene in particular shows that the factory has been a problem with the workers for a while. It gives background information and also the next images go on to show that the workers are conversing and talking about the conditions of the factory. I find it interesting that they are hidden behind the wheels of the factory. It makes them seem as if they are part of the machine or a part of the factory as a whole. As part one plays out, I enjoyed the superimposition linking of the secret group to their animal code names. I thought to be very revolutionary in the film world and montage helps the scene play out in a very interesting way.

This time while watching, I looked for the character placement in each scene. The way the characters act in their surroundings tells more of a story than words can. Their acting style is very Vaudeville. They ignore the camera but they know that it's there, which in my opinion causes their acting style to be more active and live. I was extremely interested around Provocation and Debacle. The characters in this scene, including "The King", are very animated and very much aware that they are on a stage. Every movement is exaggerated and their costuming works well with the film.

What I don't understand is why Eisenstein wanted his characters to act in this way, which seems childish and mocking the point he's trying to make. This is a politically charged film that showcases corruption. The greedy factory owner, at least to me, is similar to a villain on a popular cartoon or a caricature. Propaganda was also woven into this film as well, which I think is an integral part of making this film as great as it is.

With everyone's "favorite" scene, or at least the most talked about scene is the massacre at the end, As much as I hate the visuals of the slaughtering of the masses and the slaughtering of the poor cow, I think that it had to be done to show just how much pain and suffering that the Eisenstein was foreseeing for the public if something wasn't changing. This makes this film more of an avant-garde piece. Not only because of the montage and different techniques of transitioning from scene to scene, but because of the overall message that this film pushes.

After watching the film this time, I was not moved or perplexed. I was still grossed out by the cow, but I did think about how many films were influenced by this one. There are countless films now that use this montage technique or the superimposition to reveal the reasoning behind characters. If anything, I gained more respect for the film as a whole. I think a lot of Eisenstein's films, such as Battleship Potemkin, need to be watched more than once so the viewers can have a chance to take in all the information he includes in his films. I loved the acting in this film as well as the sets.

Until next time,
Sophia Broesamle

Groovy Screening Numero Uno

Dearest Blournal,

This week I watched trick films by Melies, Dream of a Rarebit Fiend, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, and Menilmontant. All films were stunning by design, but all had a trademark of their own. I have seen The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari multiple times in many different classes in the SAC department, but it was nice to be able to pick new things out of the film and to see how it made me feel as a whole. 

I will say that my favorite of the bunch was Menilmontant. It seems much more modern for it's time. For example, the close up on the young girls face in the beginning of the film. It's very choppy, but it serves a purpose and gets the audience into her face. We can see the emotions running through- thought to thought, panic to anxiety. Then, for the rest of the film, the audience is in the main character's mind. It's incredible. Subtle but intense cinematography choices. I love the interactions between the two main female characters. When they are reunited again, the camera stays close on their face and the audience can feel the emotions running through them.  Also, I am intrigued or interested in finding out why Dmitri Kirsanoff had such a use for feet in this film. I thought it to be an interesting to go back to. For example, the ankles showing of the women puts them in the status of prostitution (in Victorian times it was deemed scandalous for women to show their ankles and showing ankles mean the dress is shorter). Anyways, the camera tends to stay on feet, or low to the ground. Every frame is important in this film which is why I find it so fascinating. Again, I find it similar to modern films now. It's more choppy, but I feel as if there is a primitive narrative in this film, but it's somehow more interesting than films I see now. Since the camera is so close on the actions and the characters, I feel much more involved.

Relating this film especially to my ideas of Avant-Garde makes it much easier to understand. My interpretation of Avant-Garde is the push forward and expanding of new ideas in filmmaking. So, Menilmontant is very much breaking new barriers. Pushing out of German Expressionism, like the film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, and moving into a more narrative style. The readings, such as Gunning's 'Cinema of Attractions', also tells how there were exhinbitionist films that had characters purposefully "show off" to the camera. So, the Dream of the Rarebit Fiend is very "showy"to me. (Rarebit, by the way, is a dish of melted and seasoned cheese on bread. Quite tasty, my family makes it a lot), There is awesome effects, such as the miniature sets and double-exposure, superimpositions and etc. The film borrowed many techniques from Melies' trick films, but added more of a charm to it, which sets it as an avant-garde piece.

Overall, I love and appreciate all these films. I have now watched Menilmontant about 10 times through and I keep finding new things and I also keep asking more questions. One of the ones haunting me is the tracking of the numbers on the walls of the street. Why do they keep appearing? No idea.

Until next time dear Blournal....

Sophia