Double the Trouble

Imagine: you are watching two conversations taking place. One is completely silent, but all the violent action is taking place. The conversation you are able to hear has violent words, but there is no action. It's very conflicting. There isn't much else to do besides compare and contrast the two pictures. Both have intriguing shots that are also beautifully crafted. 

Chelsea Girls is just this. Two screens that test your capability to be able to sit in a theatre seat watching a narrative that makes no sense. As I said before, the shots are beautiful. It captures the emotion perfectly as well as gives the camera a new purpose in the filmic arts. The camera almost seems as a character instead of being a fly on the wall. This is Andy Warhol first major commercial success that runs three hours long and takes place in the Hotel Chelsea in New York City. I think it's interesting that we can see into lives of the different people staying at the hotel. In Andy Warhol's interview Nothing to Lose, he states that "life and living are more interesting than particular people." He took the life of the world around it and interpreted it into conversations that showcase a particular group of people in a particular time in the world. The sixties unveiled a new cultural change the world that no one had ever seen. 

Stars, such as James Dean, represented the culture in films. Like Dean's character in Rebel Without A Cause, there are characters in the split screens of Chelsea Girls. In the bedroom scenes with the women, Hannah is in charge. She has a demeanor that is stronger than anyone else's and she goes against the social norm. In a way, she reminded me of Rizzo from Grease. Both characters are "tough cookies." They have the strength in their character to mold the others around them and I find it extremely intersting. But, with Hannah, I didn't like her character and I disliked her character throughout because of how much she annoyed me with the way she talked. 

Overall, I don't think I have the capacity to sit here in a theatre seat for longer than we did in class. I had no feeling of transcendece, I was merely disgusted by the fact that we as humans can be that disgusting and awful to each other. Warhol managed to show every aspect I hate about people. I was extremely uncomfortable and the film made me anxious. I felt myself looking at the clock too often because I wanted it to be over. But, did I want it to be over because of the fact that I saw certain things that I have seen in person? Or because I could turn into what I hate someday? I have no idea. I'm glad it ended.

On the other hand, Scorpio Rising was a great film. I loved the way the music was chosen for this as well as showing the fascination of men and their new obsession, bikes. It's a new look for men. Greasers have taken up the image of rebels and they have both captured the eyes of men and women. Such as the camera looks upon women in the eyes of men, the camera has switched sides and is now giving women the opportunity to look at men (or men to look at men). All of the shots were beautiful and it showed the culture in a way that didn't make me feel uncomfortable which made me happy. I like being happy. (I also sang along because the soundtrack was awesome.)

Well...I Guess That Happened

So, we watched some interesting films in lab this week.
I may or may not be scarred after watching Asparagus, but I will get over it eventually. We were warned of it, however, I don't think one could properly warn someone of the events of this film by words. You just have to watch. As much as it disturbed me, I appreciated a lot of the aspects of the film. For example, the beginning shot was gorgeous. The camera panned from a window to a desk and it reminded me of Salvador Dali's 'Persistence of Memory' as well as some other surrealist paintings. That was beautiful. The rest of the film also had a lot of moments where it was very well thought out where objects were placed as well as what the main character did with the objects. In the Maya Deren reading, she talks a lot about choreography in cinema. Objects are placed in a certain way and characters move a certain way in order to tell the story in the right way. The camera also plays a major role in how it moves. So, like the camera panning in from the window to the desk, a new story is starting. Then the camera moves in order to start the motivation for the next scene. As well as being pleasing to the viewers eye, it also helps them understand the premise of the story more.
In the film Asparagus, the woman has no face. I wonder if this correlates to the situation that this could be a feminist film and that the no-faced woman is representing women as a whole or if it doesn't have to be a woman and if it could be a man...the world may never know. Whichever the case, I was rather happy she didn't have a face. It was easier to watch her do the things she did with the asparagus. This film included a lot of phallic objects, which one could say that she is establishing dominance. However, I don't think this is true because she has no face. There is an "it" factor. What is she? What does she want? Dulac quotes in Lewis' "Image and the Spark" that "the cinema can certainly tell a story, but one mustn't forget that the story is nothing. The story is a surface....Visual impact is ephemeral, it's an impact you receive which suggests a thousand thoughts." Yes. I agree with her. I had more than a thousand thoughts for this film. The film went in a thousand different directions, but it moved the audience in a way that most films couldn't. After watching the film, I thought about my dreams more. If I could make them into a film, what would it be? My dreams are random. Some have my fears in them, some have treasured memories. You can dream a thousand dreams in your sleep. Though I don't think my dreams are quite as erotic and filled with phallic things, my film of my dreams would be random and go from shot to shot. So, I was able to find a common ground with the film and after a day or two to think about the film I decided that I liked it.

I believe that it is an Avant-Garde piece because it is a new way of pushing film to new heights. It captures dreams more than a painting could do. Paintings are only one frame whereas film is multiple frames put together. Each frame posses a thousand different thoughts and ideas to what a meaning could be. I like that in this film the viewer gets to decide. There is no solidified story. It shows sex, violence, and a woman who is in the middle of all of it. But she is in control of what she is doing which gives the audience reason to believe that the film is empowering women in ways that no cinematic piece has done. The audience may have to let the film simmer a while before they can decipher what it means, but, it's a great piece. Enjoy.

A Blournal Morning

Cinema is montage. Pictures move across the screen in patterns and rhythms that correspond to the mood and beats of the circumstances. Many different films use a lot of different techniques. Some short films resemble haikus that plan out each individual shot. Some filmmakers use a more dreamlike inspiration to be able to help them capture the thoughts that appear in their head.

This week, we watched many films that are all about what the image means. Cinema is able to show dreams on screen. Ramain talks in his article that cinema is influenced by dreams. In a way, watching a film can be a day dream. It pulls you away from reality and shows new and amazing visuals. So, the films The Life and Death of 9413, The Furies, The Fall of the House of Usher and Lot in Sodom, the montage and other techniques used show more of dreamlike states. In The Life and Death of 9413, it is most definitely influenced by dreams. The visuals, such as the signs that say Hollywood, the wagging finger, and the behaviors of the characters are all abstract. Nothing seems to be placed in a manner that would be "realistic." I loved how this film made the characters seem like puppets. While watching, I felt like a puppet myself. Watching the woman stand up and sit down when she was told or watching male characters repeat their lines. In a way, this reminded me of a cinema of attractions. I feel as if the characters were very aware that the camera was in front of them. True, they didn't look at the camera, but it was very theatrical.

Another theatrical film was Hearts of Age starring Orson Wells. I was very uncomfortable watching this film. I felt as if this was a film about hanging a black man. There were multiple sexual innuendos, such as the woman riding the bell. This film also failed to make any sense. This film also has hints of Expressionism which gives the film a more theatric as well as dream-like stance. It depends heavily on images that lead to the next event. I didn't like the loops, mostly because they made the film more uncomfortable to watch, but they were also humorous. I would say that this film is more of an amateur student film, but it still makes cinema more of an art form. There is so much room for interpretation and so much creativity put into this film. 

A film that I absolutely adored was The Furies. I thought that this was so beautiful and so clever. The way that the furies are "born" out of the chaos of the murder is incredible. They look like flames lighting and it's also brilliant how they are flying through the sky. The cuts back and forth between the couples and the furies make it more chaotic and it adds to the overall factor of the film. I also love the elements they use in the film, such as the woman staring down the barrel of the gun. The circular shape is present. Shapes are pattern that repeats throughout the film. 

I also appreciated Manhatta and A Bronx Morning. I lived in New York all summer and it was cool to see the city in a new light. These films were very much like documentaries or portraits of a place. They covered large areas and involved people as part of the city. It's an interesting technique, but it worked.