My Final Words

Experimental Film was definitely a challenge for me. Like i said in one of my previous post, i was introduced to a new world of art. I was unfamiliar with this work, and had no idea how to interpret it. Then the semester progressed, and i slowly realised that the work had more meaning then what was being projected one screen, you just had to go in depth in order to understand it more. Throughout the different works i viewed fro m different artist i learned that artist work in many different ways, and expresses there thoughts in different ways as well. We viewed feature length films, that dealt with reality, then we had movies that dealt with isolation, other topics that came up were the use of space, camera movement, words, and so on. I'm not gonna lie, i still don't feel that i have a full understanding of the this medium, but by taking this class, i know i got an idea of what it is, and what it can represent. Some of the work i didn't like, and some of it i enjoyed, i guess it all depended on the subject, or the way the work was being presented. This is the end of my journey (well, at least for three months) and i hope that i can further my understanding of this medium in the future.

VIEWMASTERS




When the artist Vladamir presented her work to us I was amazed in the way she did it. She went out of the ordinary and made her work through view masters. This was a refreshing experience in class. Her medium was individually owned and was a medium that no one else would work with. What I loved about this medium was that it was all viewed through view masters. It told a complete story, a narrative, in pieces. I think that what made this work so unique was that she made it all, she literally handcrafted her work, which in a way made the work more meaningful. The way she presented her work her work, where as every single person had a viewfinder of their own, gave her work more meaning. I like the fact that everyone had their own viewfinder to view, and the fact that it was our own yet you knew everyone else was looking at the exact same thing. My favorite work by Vladamir was Actaeon at Home. The reason I found this piece to be more interesting then the others, was because of the fast moving pace. Unlike this one, her other work asked us to changed images at a slower pace. Actaeon at Home constantly changed the pace from fast to slow. This had more of an impact to me because I felt as if I were getting an adrenalin rush, I felt that I had to change the frame faster and faster. I didn’t even have to listen to the cue, in order to change the frame. With this particular piece you kind of got a sense of when you should change it. Besides her having different frames, she also had them in interesting angles, like the train, where you got a close up, then a long shot, then back to the train tracks. This work was an interesting piece that makes interact with the artist as much as possible.

Goshogaoka

The Film Goshogaoka has by far been one of my favorite films throughout the semester. First of all, i thought the subject of the film was what made the film as interesting as it was. The choice of filming a girl's basketball team in china, and using choreographed moves to portray them on camera was fascinating.

First I’d like to say that even though this film seemed real ( by real I mean that the characters are doing this as a daily routine) it was staged like a play. Lockhart's use of a camera allows us to only see what's in the frame. So basically one can only see what’s going on within the stage, and like a play things happen offstage that sometimes we can't see which makes the movie and use of camera more effective. The use of a long shot also makes us as viewers focus on the whole team as a whole, and not only on one player. we see the team as unit, that is unified by one thing, and that is basketball. By watching these girls, you can also see them as performers and not only basketball players. The reason one can see them as performers, is because the way they are choreographed.

One thing that also stands out within this film is that there are never actual shots of the players playing, or even of them doing anything that one can say they're even players. The shots of them choreographed really don't mean anything if you think of it, they all simply do the same thing, which means that what they are doing could be a show, and all they are doing is something anyone else can do with practice.

. By viewing the film Hamilton by Matthew Porterfield, I noticed that it had many similarities with the Film D'est by Chantal Akerman. Both Des't and Hamilton use time duration, isolation, and location.

One similarity that i found between Hamilton and D'est is the way they the director's used time within their films. In both films time was an essence, one can say that the use of time is what made the movie more interesting. Well, to start off, both films were feature length films. Can one say that them being feature length films was necessary? I for one felt that it wasn't necessary for them to be feature length films, in order for them to put their point across.

Apart from being feature length films, they both used scenes where that same scene was shot for long period's of time. In Des't there are many scenes where Akerman films the same shot for more then seconds, she actually films them in long periods of minutes. One that comes to mind was around the middle of the film, when there is a girl that is cutting a piece of bread and sausage. That same scene last about 3 minutes, and all you see the character doing, is cutting the bread and meat, then placing it on a plate. On Hamilton, there is a specific scene where the Joe, the main character and his mother are driving a car for a long period. All you seeing this shot, is them sitting in the car as the mom is driving and he is smoking. Yes, the mom does glance at him a few times but never says anything, it is a silent and passive. A lot of the scenes i felt could be shortened, but then again, those certain scene's that lasted long period's also gave the film a mood, a feeling of truth.

Ackerman captures realism and experimental mood throughout the film by filming real people doing normal things, things that any other person would do. In Hamilton, the characters and narrative are used to set up time. Although the formats used by both films are different, they both set a similar mood to a viewer.

In both films the use of time is slow therefore you get a feeling of isolation. In D’est the camera is in constantly panning across the peoples faces, but it seems that the characters can care less for it, as they glance at it and choose to ignore it. There is never an act of conversation or interaction with each other. In Hamilton there is a slow camera movement taking place where situations are never established and all you see is a jump from situation to situation. By looking at the film, you could never tell if there is any relation to the characters seeing that it is never established. We know that there is a relationship amongst each other, but them barely speaking to each other gives you a feeling of isolation. It seems that they are all living there own worlds, and the only reason they are connected is because of the baby.

When i saw the film Age 12: Love with a Little L (Jennifer Montgomery, Super8 on DVCam, color/sound, 22 minutes, 1990) I thought it was the strangest thing i had ever seen. Apart from it being strange, i thought that the whole pissing on another person scene was a little to much for me as a viewer. Perhaps it was her work i didn't enjoy watching. I really don't know what to say to not offend the artist work, because after all it is art. I guess there were certain scenes were one as a viewer could see as a personal thing, and not something that you should display on camera for the public to see. This is what i thought about her work, I really didn't like it and to be honest i didn't understand it.