Select Media Festival

http://www.selectmediafestival.org/index.html

Cool festival features the yes men, tim and eric, eric fensler among others.

48 hour vidrace: evaluation

I liked the idea of the 48 hour video race. I thought that it was a great opportunity to do anything. The constraint being time didn't phaze me because I'm last minute anyway. In reality though, it was a horrible time for me. The end of the semester was a horrible gauntlet of deadlines, and I was down to the wire for about 2 1/2 weeks straight. My 48 hour vid race was a ruuushed sequel to Wayne's vid race. Wayne was supposed to be in this one, but I couldn't bet ahold of him. Buuummer. I knew I wouldn't have anytime to edit so I just did it in one take (actually 4 takes). I guess that's appropriate for a timed film race though. That adds to the fun. Also a lot of fun was dubbing it live, something I had joked about doing while making it. When Shannon suggested that I do that I didn't even think about the "psychedelic" scene. I did my best to keep my random noises the randomest.

Los Cronocrimenes

The Horror/Thriller genre is full of shit. There's good and bad, but on average its pulpy cliche worn out stuff. Los Cronocrimenes was very fresh however. It went between these genres and sci fi deftly, starting out as a horror. The protagonist, a middle aged man who just moved into a new house with his wife is relaxing in the backyard, looking off into the distance with binoculars when he sees a girl take her top off in the woods. He also sees a man in a trenchcoat with bandages all over his face. As soon as his wife leaves, he's off to investigate. There's already a creepy mysterious tone. I was ready to skip this movie, but the beginning got me into it. Nothing seems to make sense for a while, but its apparent he's in danger. He has to run from the mystery man, while talking to an unknown scientist on a walkie talkie. That is an awesome suspense scene. Early on you are scared for the guy. The scenario is so at once casual, everyday, believable, and yet it is out there as well. Neither you nor the protagonist get what's happening until the end really. I don't want to spoil it, so I guess I'll stop describing scenes, but I will say that this is a time travel story that is impressively tight and coherent. Everything comes back.
Aside from being a great thriller piece, this film was impressive because of it's spare setting. A house, an unadorned scientific compound (which is really just a few house looking structures) surrounded by a fence, and the woods. Limited sets imply to me a limited budget which is great because this plot was awesome and didn't need anything fancy really. The Time Travel lab might have cost more, but whatever, I"m just speculating aimlessly. I also really liked the fine balance the film had between really serious and very funny. The humor was always just a little implied. The events of the film were serious, it was tense, but I feel like it never got that heavy. It never evoked all out laughter, but a lot of the movie was just an inch away from it. I don't know how to describe it more than that.

Wesley Willis' Joyrides

I hadn't heard about this guy for a while. To me he was that crazy crackhead who wrote those crazy songs where he tried to advertise in the end. I probably heard about him in ninth grade or something. This documentary showed me a lot about the guy. He wasn't homeless, nor on crack. He was a chronic schizophrenic who seemed to always be working in his own way.
He spent a lot of his days drawing cityscapes of Chicago. He would sell these by bartering with people. He would always be talking to people and was supposed to be hugely friendly.
I found the commentary by an art critic interesting, the way Willis' perspective is actually quite interesting despite the childlike quality that the colored markers and scribbling gave. Willis' drawings had some amazing detail; apparently the numbers on cars and license plates are real numbers he remembered. The scribbling was rudimentary looking in detail, but shading was secondary to representing the shape and design of all the buildings and all the little cars and buses on the freeway. The freeway and buses were favorite subjects of his. A standout quality of his drawings are the little commentaries he puts on it. It's like a cartoon version of Chicago where Wesley Willis made all the graffiti. There are little bits about Hellbuses, and McDonalds and America whooping ass that resemble his hilarious outbursts and song lyrics. Like the artist himself the drawings seem remedial at first, but are pretty genius.
A true renaissance man, Willis' creative mind expressed itself in multiple mediums. A poet and a singer, Willis joined his roommate/guy who owned a couch that he slept on's band. They became Wesley Willis and the Fiasco's. They gathered hype and toured the nation and apparently made a lot of money. Willis purportedly would carry tens of thousands of dollars with him, which you can afford to do if your a crazy looking 6'5" black guy screaming "demon profanity" in sweatpants. They didn't last forever, partly because of the demon profanity and other schizophrenic related mood disturbances. In the mean time Wesley Willis charmed america with such tunes as "rock and roll mcdonalds", "I wupped Batman's ass" "Elvis Presley" and "hes doing time in jail". That last one was about a man who cut him with a boxcutter on a Hellbus. Elvis Presley is just one of many songs in which he directly addresses pop culture. Rock and Roll McDonalds fits in that category as well, but also is emblematic of a certain motif, wherein he would try to get money from corporations for mentioning them in his song, maxwell house for instance. I don't think he ever got the money, but he tried. There was a great quote: someone was asking him if he was in it for the music not the money and he said he was in it for the music and the money. Good combo.
I love hearing about people with mental difficulties who are actually geniuses. I think idiot savant is not the term to apply here, because he wasn't an idiot, he was very clever and resourceful as well as creative, he acted unusual and had disturbances I guess. He was heavily medicated though. The tone throughout was very good. It was hilarious without making fun of him. I saw all the crazy things he said as if he knew exactly what he was saying all the time. They compared him to a sanskrit(?) concept--I forget what it was called. There was a word for crazy/mad and a word for someone who was crazy because they were in love with the world, in love with god. One could distinguish them because the madman was destructive, had evil urges, whereas the ___(concept) made those around him happy. He made me happy. I wish I could have headbutted him while he were still alive. The film did get more serious towards the end, when his schizophrenia got worse and then when he got sick, recovered, died, but it wasn't a downer. The death was brief and noone cried. The director kept the films ebullient tone balanced and intact.

3-d workshop

I have to say I was a little bit detached, a little bit discouraged about this project/assignment. I wasn't too into it because I couldn't see the effect. My eyes separated the images: only one color at a time would be in focus. I could see the other with the other eye but it was as peripheral vision. I couldn't get the images to combine. I think this has to do with whatever is wrong with my eyes. It seems like I'm always being told something different about my eyes, which I guess means I'm fogetful, but I'm pretty sure I have esotropia myopia, or whatever it is called I think it makes one eye focus at a time when I'm not wearing contacts or glasses, with the other serving as peripheral. I think I'm nearsighted.


I just wikipedia'd esotropia myopia and I think it makes sense. Myopia means nearsighted, which means trouble seeing far away. There is also a statistically significant correlation between Myopia and higher IQ's. Esotropia is a condition where one eye goes a little crossed while the other dominates the focus. According to the wiki entry I have alternating esotropia because neither eye is dominant all the time, it just depends on what I'm looking at. People used to notice the crossing quite a bit more, or would at least think I wasn't looking at them. I've never really noticed in a mirror. But being "nearsighted" is confusing because I actually have better than average sight when taking the eye tests with the letters. I don't know. I haven't worn my contacts for a couple months because they wore out. sometimes they feel a bit strained but I guess it's not too important. We'll see next time I go to the eye doctor.

Back to the subject at hand, I can't really see the 3-d effect. The esotropia is probably worse since my vision is split and my brain loses its ability to combine my binocular vision when it is blue and red. Or something. I think I understand it better than I can explain it.

I'm biased based on the above but I thought we spent too much time on it. It's an unusual technique which is what 6x1 is about but It's a bit gimmicky. I didn't think it was as fun also because there aren't many variables; it wasn't something you could play with like the other assignments we had, it was kind of technical. Also, we only had so much time for the actual production so it turned out kind of stupid so I was sick of it by the time we were editing it.

I guess this was kind of an experimental assigment so I'm at ease with it. I guess on a positive note I have some sweet 3d goggles to give away and at least an understanding of a process that I won't necessarily use, but you know, the more you know.

Hehehehehe

Freestyle eh? ...







OK, I really love the Rush Hour series of films. Yes, Films. Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker is a combination of the ages. As good as Beverly hills cop or whatevah. Shanghai knight was good, but pretty much just as good as Jackie Chan. Owen Wilson, while a good actor and writer, added nothing to that movie. Rush Hour... mmm... I'm watching the third installation right now. While not the same character at all Chris Tucker really proved himself to me first in the fifth element. His art shines through in both that movie and this series.

You may say, "Rush Hour? Quoi? Average Hollywood Dumpshit?" Not true. Anyone with an ounce of grey matter knows that anything Jackie Chan touches is gold (nevermind The Tuxedo). But this dynamic duo. Brilliant. Like butch cassidy and the sundance kid, cleopatra and mark antony, J-Lo and Mark Anthony... Robin and Batman, Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass...

They're great.

They make me feel good inside. I see that it is trite, uncritically acclaimable and whatnot, but this is my equivalent of a chick flick. I get warm fuzzies all over, joy and happiness. It's like I'm right there with Jackie and Chris (Li and Carter) non-lethally destroying bad guy ass in a new place each time.

Last time I was home me and my little brother and our friend Alex played a drinking game to this movie. Drink every time Jackie does his own stunt or Chris Tucker says something sassy. It was a silly, silly.. silly night.

In other news I'm getting my wisdom teeth taken out tomorrow. I'm really looking forward to being fucked up and watching five movies per day all weekend. Also... well thats all. I'm going to be so zonked. It won't be that great, I have things to do but I guess I better enjoy my zonkosity.

48 hour video race.

This is no problem. Most of my projects are started 48 hours from the deadline anyway. This class isn't special. I'm talking papers, groupwork. Everything. Horrible idea most of the time. I just can't help it yet.

ANYWAYS, I think this will be really fun, I'm glad its right after everything else I have to do is due so I won't have to worry about anything. I plan on using Wayne Moss in mine since he used me in his.

Capture methods. I think I'll combine. I like the scanner idea. I don't know if anyone is going to let me borrow and play around with theirs though. Can I borrow yours? Anyone? Andre? I would like to see what kind of abstract image I can get, or at least less representational, less a image with a unique texture but more a unique form all together. maybe? Something to do with the scanning light going across slowly. Blurring and whatnot.

But I don't want to do just that. I'll probably use some cellphone or still camera (w/ video) footage for more straightforward sequences. I have no idea what this will be yet though. How can I without the mystery prop eh?

The zoetrope idea is fun, but I don't know how I would do it for a whole minute unless it was huge. I could possibly incorporate it into the vid and just tape it, perhaps a zoom in from the spinning thing to the moving image in the slits. Might be too much to do though.

I'm interested in doing everything with this. The scanner is appealing because of its novelty obviously, and the lack of a forseeable event/assignment in my future where I'll be able to try that again. Same for the zoetrope. But if any of that falls through this will be a fun event just to make any kind of video I want without the constraints of an assignment or a group assignment. The fact that we can use stil cameras with video is nice because it encourages experimentation, but we can pretty much do anything. It's less of a constraint than a licence for us not to have to check out cameras or have it look clean or "good" or whatever. Low budget, makeshift and fun.

Hell Yes Men

These guys. THESE GUYS. I can't believe how silly their pranks were. The gold suit in particular. Such an epic burn by such silly boys. I can't believe all the time and effort that went into such a silly affair. What a debacle? I mean, was the WTO embarrassed? I wish they'd have shown reactions of the organization, press releases and whatnot. The gold suit was hilarious looking. Did they believe that the WTO was being serious? I remember they looked kind of blank. Surprised, but not outraged, excited or anything. I can't believe (nor would I have believed) that that was a legitimate proposal by legitimate (not fraudulent representatives). But maybe they did. Their lack of boos, the peremptory attention paid the presentation, the Jadedness? How could that insanity not been more stimulating if not in approval than anger. That kind of acceptance, the detached, emotionless ennui, the shy perception of a norm? That's the sad fact. The joke is less on the WTO in some ways as it is on the people who would listen to them. Presumably respectably, powerful, their opinions are probably more valuable than most, but their presence is pliant, flaccid complicit. Maybe the yes men were being ridiculous, I think they looked like obvious impostors. Blank demeanors were an unsettling reaction. Not the comic anger or wholehearted ironic approval. Just "whelp, uh huh. Hm." Weird. Creepy. Unsettling.

It is inspiring to know what these people do, because it is so alternative to traditional paths that are so marked by precedent and connotation and whatnot. These people work in a truly rare field, and they live off of it right? Thats daunting and inspiring. They really are out on the slimmest limb, out for that hard to reach acorn. The more I hear about idiosyncratic careers and lifestyles I feel less alone, less compelled to take the prescribed routes of success. So many voices will try to direct, but ultimately I think I'm the one that will know what to do because what to do is what I want to do. It's hard to completely detach expectations of others from your behaviour. It's hard to detach it even in little bits. But in a lot of ways being true to yourself, "following your heart" all these cliches make sense. How to be happy? Go where you want to go, do what you want to do? These make sense. What doesn't is an expectation to be a type or to be a certain idol. Even the filmmaker label is a deceiver. The lines may cross other fields and in drawing them you know what you are doing, but having the label is having an imposing boundary, a confusing boundary.

I wish that I had learned to think about the future in terms of what next and what would you like to do later, instead of do this now and what do you want to be later. Being is not something that just happens. You have to do. By wishing on a "be" I have ignored the process of getting there. I have ignored the do. I just assume based on intellect, on pride, that I'll "be" the image of myself that is best. And then when I can't see how that will happen, my image of me is that of a hollow slouch, not an imposter but a daydreamer, incapable of output. Only input. But that's negative thinking. But negative thinking to me is really a process of finding a positive stream of behavior. You can't avoid conflict caused by misunderstanding, and understanding comes from yourself, and I am young with plenty of time, and It serves no goal to fear failure. Good things come to those who do. Passion Passion Passion. I need some time, infinite unstressed time, to get passionate.

Molotov Man

I read a book called Accelerando in a science fiction class with nick laudadio a few semesters ago. From a literary standpoint I can't say that it was that great. But the ideas were amazing. It was such good sci fi. The shock was in the revelation of the future, but it was special from other sci fi because it seemed just around the corner. It started in the 2010s with very realistic advancements: headset computer's that followed eye movement as input etc. Then it started getting exponentially more intense yet it merely followed our current rate of computer advancement based on more's law. It was mind blowing how different things could become as computers gain the bandwidth and power to replicate minds. The point of all this is that at the rate of change that we are all so used to I think it is completely plausible that copyright is going to completely change or go away. Well, that wasn't such a big point. Maybe I can connect this better in the next paragraph.
Copyright is designed to protect creative endeavor, but it merely protects creative endeavor as a means to make money.(?) The wording needs to be changed in the law because it's clear that there are examples on both sides of the fence that are convincing. No, noone should be able to claim your work as their own and noone should be able to make money from it without restitution, but then again appropriation is necessary to take account of. A conundrum. There are caveats about artistic appropriation education etc, but it doesn't seem to stick. Lawsuits still seem to happen over infuriating things. The molotov man for instance....

I started this thinking I was just going to rant against copyright but now I'm seeing both sides. I guess Susan M@%(^(*&^ has some good points. But... I don't know, my original idea was that if it isn't enforceable, if things are changing more and more and you can just have music vs. paying for it (yay piracy), then old ideas about ownership can just be left behind. But thats very utopian and naive and whatnot. Anybody SHOULD be able to do anything they want and anything they find and anybody can, but then there is an imaginary public sphere with imaginary laws that paper and lawyers define and give the right to cops and whatnot to use force to enforce. Duh, silly rant subject, I'm not enlightenment philosopher with a wig. But that's were my personal take on politics stems from, utopian ideas from reading a lot of orwell and huxley and whatnot, therefore my ideas arent very practical. But I can still download illegally. I am the change I want to see in the world.

thepiratebay.org is a great website where you can download illegally. The great thing is it's not illegal in Sweden, where the website's creators live. They don't care! Sweden is a wierd bastion of freedom. I don't know how they get away with being so awesome. On thepiratebay.org they have letters between them and american (and other) companies trying to sue for copyright infringement. The responses are hilarious for the insolent, arrogant, outright rudeness, the complete disregard for the corporate lawyer's perceived authority, their fatuous expectation of fear and powerlessness. They don't realize the boundaries of their imaginary laws. You can do whatever you want. Hail Satan.

I think I used to write more coherently. I haven't had to write a paper in a while and I think I might fail the upcoming one I have to do. Fuck.

The part about the damn germans making everysong perfect; but it wasn't. They thought their form was precise, but they had no steez. They were a bunch of chumps in reality. Form is nothing, style is everything. I mean, that applies to everything right? right? right? right? yes. I like this article because it presents my central assertion that bullshit like "how you do something" really doesn't matter. The content isn't the planning or the architecture etcetera and whatnot. It's the subject, the costume, the mise en scene, the drunk guy being ridiculous. Technicality schmecnicality. That's why jackass was successful. Cinematography is great, but an out of focus picture of a celebrity titty will still sell for $200,000. A celebrity titty on film is literally probably worth it's weight in finely cut daimonds (speculative guess only).

All this jazz about theater is very anarcho-punk which is a great genre, if universally dismissed. I mean, yeah, the revolution would be brilliant. I'm not revolutionary enough to be constantly mad at capitalism, but just imagine how sweet would non capitalism be. Meritocracy? Artocracy? Youtube, the internet, torrents, myspace. fossils of a prefree age. We are in the dark ages as far as I'm concerned; I believe in a free future, creation being currency. When I say believe in I don't necessarily mean a literal certainty of a specific future, but a positive thinking hope, a best case scenario, better than reality and whatnot. (six hundred words is too much. Nah it's alright.) Anyways, I completely relate to this guy. He get's to the root of things. Pressure and money tell you to focus on the right angles, the specific measurements, the technicalities. And to me they are technicalities. It's arrogant, but I mean, like, might as well right? I always want to be the guy with the ideas, the guy in the denim jumpsuit, grossing people out, shaking his massive junk, calling the shots. That's my life. This is: Jamie Bibo.

Painting

One Shot

I found this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zRy7PWfcGw&feature=related) video and was inspired for the one shot some what. Well, this vid relies heavily on editing, but I really liked the slow motion run, and the girl in the rain. It was very simple, but it looked great.
I'm not sure exactly what I want to do for the one shot though. I think setting is important. I know of a good series of dirt hills on campus, how far can we go? Setting and costuming can make any cheap venture look so much better. If you have a great camera, great lighting etc anywhere can look good, but a good place and a good character, with interesting color, gesture, framing etc, can make up for the shittiest of equipment technically. I think that format is not nearly as significant as content, and that's why youtube is so beautiful.
I think that crystal castles, the aforementioned band, is great in a lot of ways because of the synthesis of their image and their sound. They use recycled sounds from video games, and have an aesthetic of cheap microsoft paint cutting. Their image is of techno ease, a child clumsily using windows 95 to create what his peers use crayons for.
Anyways, that was just building up to the conclusion that even a "low grade" format like youtube (and super 8) or has its charms. Not even that relevant to the one shot. I do hope we can do slo mo tho.

Also important to the one shot is motion obviously. I hope we spend a significant amount of time on choreography, and I hope that the camera motions will be good. More specifically, I hope there is motion on all planes, and all/a lot of angles explored in one shot.

I think a motion study, like muybridge or lumiere shorts, would be interesting. That would be a good reason to have all sorts of angles. Skateboarding and running would be good, or gymnastics. Or dancing. Everyone can dance. I think there should be a focal figure, but maybe the focus changes as partners move around.. I really want to do slow motion. There could be background figures that come in and out of frame. I could wear my denim jumpsuit. I have hats for everyone.

We need to be sure of the camera movements, that the framing stays engaging, that the composition is dynamic and fluid, etc, and that it doesn’t just look silly. I love silly, but you have to take it seriously.

If it’s black and white…. Color isn’t important? But we could still play with the CHIAROSCURO. That’s a noun right?

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, in conclusion:

Slow motion is the best thing ever,
Rain would be cool.
Costumes make all the difference (and I am the costume king)
Gestural performance makes all the difference
Rehearsed and planned framing in a moving shot makes all the difference (i. e. Fear and loathing)
Crystal Castles are a rad band
Format Sh’moremat

I think we should use as many one pieces as possible, get a kind of unity. I can borrow a blue one from OLIVERMELLAN.COM and maybe those gold rollerskates as well.

A narrative line might also be nice as well. I’m in this class experimental and animation, and a narrative here or there would be a willing change. Sometimes I feel a bit disoriented with a complete lack of form or shape for so long. Abstract is great, but I can’t handle it exclusively. Some sort of relay would be a simple thing to play with without dialog. Wouldn’t be too complicated, could be interesting.

Andre, NO WAY!!!

Pollocking in Motion

Tangibly painting on film sounds tedious, but so far it hasn’t been for me. I like the repetition, the fact that there is no pressure to make a perfect line because it all just lasts an instant. It’s the therapeutic kind of work. 6 x 1 so far has felt like art class. I like classes dedicated to a room of people sharing an activity. It is focusing, and more assuring then setting off alone into the treacherous waters of direct filmic expression. (Ta Da). I could definitely get together with everyone twice a week, once for instruction and practice and once for working on projects.
So far I have liked the magazing transfer the best. It’s like collage and I like how collage creates such a complicated image. It has so much more detail than drawing, and it’s much easier. One can focus on big picture issues rather than just details. All the art elements are there to be found instead of everything made from scratch. I like being able to work fast to create a richer result. Composition ends up being more important.
After spending so long on the celebrity eyes in class to only see them, barely, for a split second, I know not to work in such small detail, at least not unless I have a good way to do it. I’m going to try to print images on pieces of paper sized to the strip and then magazine transfer them.
I like the rayogram when combined with the other concepts. The faintness of the image, especially something with a lot of detail like sawdust or tinsel could make for a very cool background effect to highlight animation, or even more collage type work. If I had large contrast I could detail the two portions separately. There could be scratched spirals and squiggles in the black with paint in the clear.
I’m having trouble coming up with original conceptual ideas for the project. I seem to have the same idea as other people I talk to which is a four part piece with animated transitions, grass burning, fire being doused, waves forming with wind etc. Maybe mine will be different in how the elements interact and how they go together, a four colored wheel perhaps? Then the reddish orange section sets the other three on fire and then the water squirts out and forms a green layer on top through the green corner. I have a lot of ideas. I hope I plan it well enough and don’t regret any large portion. I’m curious to see how rough it is to work on this kind of thing for a very long time. I don’t know. I’m excited to find out. I may do that small printing thing and get some Captain Planet images. It would be pretty funny to end on heart anyway. Just a beaming heart that comes right at your brain. Just for maybe two or three seconds. I might not even tell my partner if I can get away with it.
The Stereolab video I posted is a good example of how I would use these skills/techniques. I am especially interested in music videos, but also in other applications of primarily individual work in non-narrative film. I could do opening/credits sequences for movies, commercials, film festival bumpers…

Sigur Ros

http://www.youtube.com/group/Gobbledigook

Song and vid. competition.

Brakhage

I hated how this thing started for the first... many pages. I had a lot of trouble reading the tech stuff. It didn't grab my attention, but once I got past it it was good. I was really expecting Brakhage to be a pretentious, high church avant-garde, heirarchist. He was actually a breath of fresh air from a lot of the other readings. He told how to do something he was obviously passionate about. He made it clear what was so appealing about his methods. He was inside the material rather than harping about the framework of movements, what deserves merit based on blah criteria etc. I liked his bit on Kenneth Anger's triptych as well. I like the assertion that it really was something else in the screening with only fifteen people. I was assuring to know, for Anger's sake at least, that his effort was rewarded with the voucher of a legendary figure at least, that if we cannot experience it, it is promised that it was good. It makes it more valuable in a way, the rarity. It's mythic.

I want to try some masking. He made it seem like there was no good way to do it perfect, but a stamp or sticker, or a vertical divide might work. I want to incorporate that into my film.

I liked the bit about closed eye visions being multicolored patterns and recall visions being scratched on. The closed eye creates its own random shapes and colors; the low signal from the retina causing the brain's receptor organ to shimmer and ripple. The memory is percieved as warped and warn, fragments of the original peeking through the fuzz, the feeling more preserved but still impressionistic. It's like these two are how you make art to begin with, your pure, intuitive imagination, the colors and light from inside, combined with your impression of the world no matter how much of its integrity is lost. No one has photographic clarity within, we don't have the megapixels, we don't have the ability do take things down with such detail. We can take a million separate things and combine them as a rough shape, faded and scratched, bleeding at the outlines, a distorted attempt at understanding a single theme, motive, individual, object, concept, place.

Self Portrait

On account of the distinguished recommendation of one Robert Barnett.

Highly Recommendated

http://www.beggarsgroupusa.com/media/Stereolab%20-%20Neon%20Beanbag(large).mov

600 or so words of you asked for it: Scratch Junkies Response

The film was fast moving and hypnogogic, it reminded me of random mental projections one experiences subtly, but won’t necessarily remember. Kind of fever dreamy. It was choppy and yet there was a flow. The images of people and tangible objects were welcome amidst the abstract forms, shapes and swirls. I thought the drum solo was a great choice to go with something manipulated frame by frame. There weren’t notes but a collection of instantaneous strikes, crashes, which went nicely with the jumpy staccato flow. Percussion is appropriate to film. Neither have notes that last, they have tiny moments in a pattern that looks/sounds like continuity.
The flame sequence was when it became vividly internal looking. It was as if one saw the flame and the mental distortions became visible, like if you were squinting, or on drugs on drugs on drugs. Associations came freely, the black and red shifts like trying to sleep on a road trip where the sun is alternately hidden by trees and burning your eyelids off.
In my limited exposure to experimental film I tend to get bored. Mothlight? Ballet Mechanique?? No thanks. But this was good. Kept my attention, provoked thought, ruminations, ponderings, daydreams. The Scratch Junkies aimed to please, not to please themselves. Or maybe they did both.
Avant-Garde film really yanks my chain, and many others when it postures as something higher than everything else. It’s not. It’s just farther out, the cutting edge and what not. While I’m very much interested in border pushing, the idea of Mothlight irks me. Its fame is disproportionate. I don’t think its Brakhage who is grinding my gears, though it might be, I haven’t heard his side of things. It’s the idea of a tiny shred of film gaining such revere, for so long, because of a conceptual innovation. Art has function. Paintings beautify a space; fashion beautifies a person; literature, theater, and film entertain, engage, and provoke thought. Where do you experience Mothlight? An experimental film class? Is that it? My problem with Mothlight might not be valid. I realize that my trifle with this film stems from previous expectations of what film and art can and should be, and that these expectations have been anticipated by this filmmaker and others. My consciousness of this makes me want to be more open minded and yet my qualms are somewhat unsatisfactorily resolved. Who watches Mothlight and is upset when it is over? Who owns the DVD and complains when he loses it? How? Why? I just don’t have the understanding of the guttural umph of that film, the part that would justify it’s fame. Maybe I’m just not interested in art that doesn’t entertain. I’m all for the moths, I just wish they were more exciting. The Scratch Junkies weren’t boring. Come on Stan Brakhage, thy lord protector of thy avant-garde, why can’t you be more like the scratch junkies?
I’d like to learn more about this disjuncture. The big brains, old schools and college professors tend to think a certain way about these things. Why is that? I can respect experience, and readily believe in the superior knowledge of the filmic elite of myself, a trifling knave. Yet, is it hegemony? An outdated hierarchy? That was my theory in sound film. I’ve had similar rants with only myself as my witness against the omnipresence of Citizen Kane in intro film courses. I have a persistent hunch that one mustn’t believe the hype.