2/25/08

Authorship presumably has a lot of issues in all forms of media, not just what we notice in mainstream (Hollywood, at least) films. There seems to be a trend forming - executive producers being credited as the largest name advertised with the film. Michael Bay's Transformers or Quentin Tarantino Presents Hostel... Although they may have some say in creative input, most of these cases seem as they are entire replaceable.

Hostel (as bad of a movie as it is) is a prime example of this. A film written and directed (and almost entirely edited) by Eli Roth had almost no creative input from Tarantino. His name was thought to help promote the film - using a well-known/talented filmmaker to draw attention to a film by a lesser-known filmmaker.

Authorship is a tricky subject - especially in a piece of art that was highly collaborated. Works such as Ryan Trecartin's I-B Area / Family Finds Entertainment, or Althea Thauberger's Songstress / Memories Last Forever are highly dependent on all of the players being a critical creative voice. It's a very subjective matter.

I don't really think you can credit any film with a single name, unless they were solely responsible for the creation and production of it. Especially in big-production films: There are teams of writers, a director, cinematographer, director of photography, countless actors which give life to the roles they are performing. There is no way to credit a single person for a film. Film is unique like this. Rembrandt could paint on his own. Beethoven could write on his own. But, taking it further, it is not an art piece until it is viewed. Then it is up to the gallery administration or a symphony orchestra to adapt how it is presented to the audience.

2/18/08

Althea Thauberger's film on tree plotters really stuck out from her other films. Correction: all her films stuck out, but this one made more of an impression on me. In a very carefully and professional pan, we see several people laying on broken and muddied dirt - likely sleeping. When we reach the end of the pan, a helicopter lands and a person jumps out to wake all of the sleeping people - by the end, they are all situated concretely staring into the camera - much like trees which were once fallen (heh...)

I have no clue what to say about A Memory Lasts Forever....

Not Afraid to Die (I believe was the title?) was an interesting concept - specifically the independent audio and video tracks. Something as changing (per-performance) like that reminds me of works of Acconci or Cage - It's interesting how a work is not complete (especially in these works) until they are viewed --

2/11/08

Morris' Mirror and Frampton's Lemon were very simple films. Mirror focused on the 'looking' aspect shown in other films such as A+B in Ontario, which I believe is an interesting connection to make. It again stresses how subjective of a medium film (and all other art forms, for that matter) are. Whatever we're shown is the only thing we can see from that space. I believe films which focus through a second lens or eye satirize who believe, claim or haven't yet realized that film can in no way be objective (which isn't fundamentally or necessarily bad).

Semiotics of the Kitchen... I'm not too sure what I have to say about that yet. Maybe an update will come... But, for now, I will say that I found it humorous apart from the deadpan humor she tried to employ. Woah! I just NOW noticed that all the tools went in alphabetical order. That actually helps clarify the U, W, X, Y, Z thing at the end. (Although I still dont' fully understand the stabbing pan or the 'chucking' of food products over her shoulder via ladles and tablespoons).

That's what discussions are for, right?

2/4/08

Maya Deren, in her essay Creating Movies with a New Dimension: Time, explains how profoundly different the photographic process and the motion-picture process are. They are, essentially, united by nothing more than a lens and light-sensitive paper. The process of composing images (not just framing/composition, but also story/moral/imagery/critique/satire) change vastly. Motion Pictures, according to Deren, must rely on its aspect of motion over time to set it apart from its sister-media.

Cohl's The Great Pumpkin race, a trick-film from the early 1900's, extensively used this time/motion aspect of filmmaking. A photograph of these scenes would not give the comedic impression that was attributed by the motion; it would simply be a trick photograph. (I'd have more insight if I was a photography major, I assure you).

This also brings up comedy in Experimental Cinema. The Sidney Peterson wrote of this, noting that the filmmaker (the dynamiteur) seeks the most likely place to explode (climax, the nature of which is usually comedic), affecting the most people. Peterson says, however, her experience notes that the effective of these climaxes are less-than-successful. The star system has blinded the Western audience from enjoying artistic expression in motion pictures; they go to the cinema to be easily entertained, watching the studio's hottest star, with an "income equal to the combined salaries of all nine members of the Supreme Court". They simply walk-out on Experimental films.


...they are often dead before they are screened...