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.