A Double Feature Post

I am a bit late in responding to last weeks viewing (Hamilton) and early in responding to this weeks...so I am grouping responses to them together in an effort to save 15 seconds of my time.

Hamilton. In discussion last week it didn't get favorable reviews from the other students. I was a bit surprised by this as I enjoyed it quite a bit. It wasn't the greatest thing I have seen so far this year, but some of the shot were rather striking when combined with the action (or rather inaction) that was taking place on screen. One that comes to mind is the church scene where the baby starts screaming and the teenage mother exits. The father doesn't even bat an eye at this or even respond (physically or verbally). The sparse dialogue and minimal interaction between the two main characters really worked in showing there disconnection to one another and the situation that they now have to face (being parents) and clearly the boy/father is not up to it. The film didn't work for me when there was dialogue, for instance when the three girls were out by the pool talking. I think the reason for this was that a) the acting and script was amateurish and b) it appeared to only serve the purpose of dialogue in itself (versus dialogue that would present conflict, continue the story). All in all I thought it was a noble attempt at a narrative with unconventional means and it touches previous post in which I stated that I would like to see more common ground made between experimental and conventional film.

Sharon Lockhart's Gym Film. This one is tough. Sharon stated that her background was originally in photography and I think that comes through in the film we viewed today. the film is one angle unfolds in half a dozen scenes. I believe she was trying to capture all the action and forward motion that appears in film and stuff it into a single frame, like a photograph. I said that it was tough because...well it was very difficult to sit through. I have quite a bit of trouble watching movies, I can rarely sit through more than ten minutes without fighting every muscle in my body and every impulse in my brain. With all the physical activity that was taking on place on screen I just wanted to get up and run a mile. That may be a bit of a cop out, but it is what I was feeling. Outside of that, the film really didn't hold my attention. It was visually stimulating with the near synchronized exercises, but that just isn't enough to sustain my attention for 60 full minutes. And I admit that I walked out about 10 minutes early. In another format I think this idea (film/photo relationship) could be very exciting, like in an installation format with separate screens for each scene or possibly each scene chopped up and combined in one frame in a grid formation and then played. But in its native state I must admit that this was by far one of the few films that I have considered a waste of time. I hope to read some of the other responses to this piece, maybe there is something I haven't considered.

Jennifer Montgomery

This week was one of the more interesting weeks within this class, not just the presentation and videos by JM, but also in discussion. In comparison to all the other films we have viewed its no wonder why, they possess a shock value that we haven't witnessed in this class yet. I posed the question in discussion today "what if a man had made this video? (Love with a Little L)" What I meant by this was what if every aspect of the film was the same, same narration, same actors, same objective/idea, but a man had been behind the camera instead. I was getting at the idea that the only way that film could succeed as a pseudo-feminist statement was if a woman had made it. I am not trying to take away anything from that film, I like it, but if a man had made I think the criticism would be drastically different. We would likely hear comments made that this man failed at it because he couldn't grasp the concept (since he is a man, and a man could never truly relate to feminism or female sexuality) or we might hear that the film was degrading towards women, in fact we probably would never had viewed it. Another thing that was discussed was the specific shock scenes and whether they were to0 vulgar/pornographic and if/when did you tune out? I personally wasn't really shocked by any of what was viewed. I grew up as the only man in a house with three women. My mother is also a behavioral analyst so my sexual education didn't come from concerned parents but rather Masters and Johnson. I rather enjoyed "Notes on the Death of Kodachrome". It had an earnestness and unpretentious quality to it that I have yet see in any of the films we have watched, and the film that was shown at the end of it (the one made with the camera she was after) was quite funny in a dry/lo-fi sense (whether that was intended or not).

Stupid Entry #50332401

While scrolling through ThisLife.org I came across a radio show titled What I learned from TV. During the course of this show the host said that due to competing outlets (cable, internet, dvd) Television in the past few years has moved away from the tired and true format and in the process we have seen TV shows that never would have aired 20 years ago. I think that this is very true, but really only applies to the other markets (not broadcast TV). Most of the non conventional shows that have thrived have been on cable, and while others have found new life in DVD after they have died and been canceled. This got me thinking (albeit briefly) about the future of experimental film. I know nothing of the experimental film scene and couldn't care less about it, but where does it go from here? I struggle some to grasp and enjoy some of the work we have seen, 'cause for me film has always and will always be rooted in character and story; furthermore I tend to get this feeling from the film department here at UWM that there is a clear line between experimental and traditional film, and that there HAS to be a clear line between the two. This line I find rather funny because if you scan the extremes of both traditional and experimental film you will find that both tend to shun character and story and that both tend to focus on the spectacle (whether that spectacle be cgi effects, or an abstract idea). We have seen what can be possible if an artist decides to take it in the opposite direction (the viewmaster thing...though I don't consider this film) .So, as I asked earlier about the direction of experimental film, I think that its future shouldn't be in opposite direction of traditional film, but in the same direction, possibly the two could discover a happy medium.