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.