My 48 hour video race was rough. The race coincided with my final 495 shoot dates so I knew I would not have much time. As a result, I thought a long time about the concept when I was not working on the race and I think it shows.
The movie came to me in two parts. The first of which was a fairly logical leap in thinking and not too shocking. I heard the theme "my secret" and the initial image that came to my mind was dirty laundry. I couldn't use a camera so I went with my trusty cellphone.
I piled up my actual dirty laundry and shot a stop motion animation of a sort of laundry centipede escaping my house. I also added to the secrecy by making a cryptic series of numbers out of my clothes. (The numbers are part of my student id)
The result was interesting if a bit shaky and typical. A day later, I went to the digital arts lab with my pictures and got to work. The animation totaled about 20 seconds when I put it at the desirable speed. This class ain't called 6x20seconds- what was I to do?
I pondered the assignment and remembered that the ideal of using no camera would call attention to the fact. BOOM.
What if I made a transparent film? One that reveals how it was made while you watch it?
I took pictures of my cell phone with a Mac. I took pictures of the Mac with my cellphone. I even through in a few tricks that make the whole thing a sort of puzzle. The one minute film has a twist.
The film was rough because not using a camera is like painting with dirt. The quality of anything else pales in comparison to the footage of a camera. In this roughness lies intrigue. I think the theme of "My secret" was perfect for what we discussed in class. The roughness of the medium added a sense of voyeurism and "I'm not supposed to be seeing this" mojo.
I cannot wait to see what other folks in class have come up with in such a short time. (Not just because I am intrigued as to what everyone's secret is) It might get super personal and that sort of rawness is key in "the rough theatre".
Side note- there is no theater rougher than stand up comedy- lonely, simple - just a human, a mic, and a crowd. I think this is why in stand up, the truly open comedians are the transcendental ones.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Ian and I planned to listen to the entire 24 hours of a stretched out symphony. Unfortunately I haven’t been around at my house enough for that so I only listened to the required hour. Andre suggested the entry level movement, the third, was a chill place to start in the Beethoven’s ninth beet stretch. I started there but quickly moved on.
The parts I listened to seemed to always be on the rise, a seemingly never ending crescendo. The music could almost be considered triumphant were this same thing not continuously happening. The triumph became monotonous.
Once I zoned out though and closed my eyes for a bit the music started to make more sense. It seemed headed to a point, but one that I could never understand. It was music for hyper-intelligent alien sloth beings.
This puzzle did not dissipate. Instead of boring the swells became intriguing. Was there meaning here? Gone were the musical tropes of a Beethoven suite and earthly sounding instruments, but there was something new there.
The instruments became even more organic at such a slow speed. The sound of trumpets became the cries of whales.
An interesting thing to consider in all this is what a musician performing beethoven's 9th might feel were he to hear this. His hard years of practice abstracted into an art piece. Each carefully constructed progression blown up into a movement. Would a musician able to perform this piece be able to more easily distinguish each part?
I had a tough time comparing the beet stretch to the actual piece. Even side by side I couldn't put my finger on quite which part was being played. The length of the notes definitely gave the piece a life of its own.
Beethoven is turning in his grave all right. Very slowly.
The parts I listened to seemed to always be on the rise, a seemingly never ending crescendo. The music could almost be considered triumphant were this same thing not continuously happening. The triumph became monotonous.
Once I zoned out though and closed my eyes for a bit the music started to make more sense. It seemed headed to a point, but one that I could never understand. It was music for hyper-intelligent alien sloth beings.
This puzzle did not dissipate. Instead of boring the swells became intriguing. Was there meaning here? Gone were the musical tropes of a Beethoven suite and earthly sounding instruments, but there was something new there.
The instruments became even more organic at such a slow speed. The sound of trumpets became the cries of whales.
An interesting thing to consider in all this is what a musician performing beethoven's 9th might feel were he to hear this. His hard years of practice abstracted into an art piece. Each carefully constructed progression blown up into a movement. Would a musician able to perform this piece be able to more easily distinguish each part?
I had a tough time comparing the beet stretch to the actual piece. Even side by side I couldn't put my finger on quite which part was being played. The length of the notes definitely gave the piece a life of its own.
Beethoven is turning in his grave all right. Very slowly.
Monday, April 4, 2011
The Ecstasy of The Ecstasy of Influence and The Molotov Man
If I were cheeky enough I would right this response entirely from quotes from the two articles. Though I am cheeky I am also under a time constraint and that would take a lot of effort. It would take a lot of effort because as The Ectasy of Influence implies (great segway) true appropriation comes from a filtering of material through one’s life and vision. I am now appropriating from EVERYTHING I’ve ever read/seen/heard/experienced automatically.
The Ecstasy article spelled out clearly something I’ve been struggling with for a while. What are the limits of influence? Is it okay to be inspired by someone else? Of course it is, but to what extent? I didn’t know that Lolita was based in some part, perhaps accidentally, perhaps not, on a book of the same name. The article tackles the issue of plagiarism and emphasises that what we love about cultural blessings are not the things they steal, but the way they contextualize influences in new ways.
The author seemed to answer my questions as they arrived in my head. The article explained the political implications of copyright. Much respect for Tdawg Jefferson, but it would have liked a bit more breadth in the citing of founding fathers. I predicted the article would end with a blessing to steal/pirate/appropriate the author’s work, but the author stood by only allowing appropriation and recontextualization. Jefferson was again cited.
The Molotov Man article presented copyright in a way that I had never seen before- from both sides! Basically Joy recontextualized a painting of a man not wanting to know its back story and the original artist sued. The original artist, Susan, felt that context is key to understanding humanity and argued for the perpetuation of Molotov Man’s story (his real name is Pablo Arauz- look it up- so there Susan).
The article demonstrated the hive mind mentality of the internet. Users placed the Molotov Man everywhere when they heard of the lawsuit. Some mistaken participants thought the campaign was against Pepsi and acted accordingly. This misinformation is an example of the recontextualization of a recontextualization. Susan told her story and it was not the first time her image was appropriated- proving that this is not a new issue or idea. Artistic heist is required.
The Ecstasy article spelled out clearly something I’ve been struggling with for a while. What are the limits of influence? Is it okay to be inspired by someone else? Of course it is, but to what extent? I didn’t know that Lolita was based in some part, perhaps accidentally, perhaps not, on a book of the same name. The article tackles the issue of plagiarism and emphasises that what we love about cultural blessings are not the things they steal, but the way they contextualize influences in new ways.
The author seemed to answer my questions as they arrived in my head. The article explained the political implications of copyright. Much respect for Tdawg Jefferson, but it would have liked a bit more breadth in the citing of founding fathers. I predicted the article would end with a blessing to steal/pirate/appropriate the author’s work, but the author stood by only allowing appropriation and recontextualization. Jefferson was again cited.
The Molotov Man article presented copyright in a way that I had never seen before- from both sides! Basically Joy recontextualized a painting of a man not wanting to know its back story and the original artist sued. The original artist, Susan, felt that context is key to understanding humanity and argued for the perpetuation of Molotov Man’s story (his real name is Pablo Arauz- look it up- so there Susan).
The article demonstrated the hive mind mentality of the internet. Users placed the Molotov Man everywhere when they heard of the lawsuit. Some mistaken participants thought the campaign was against Pepsi and acted accordingly. This misinformation is an example of the recontextualization of a recontextualization. Susan told her story and it was not the first time her image was appropriated- proving that this is not a new issue or idea. Artistic heist is required.
Monday, March 28, 2011
The Saturday I Had Class
Our shoot began with a vague idea, two cars full of props, and the oldest of old school film cameras. We knew we wanted to film our protagonist walking while being assaulted by various objects and characters, so we grabbed all the hats, masks, clothes, and props we could find.
I brought confetti and I even went out of my way to buy water balloons. Little did I know the "waterbombs", as they were branded, would be used against their proprietor. That's right; I was a planner in my own demise. The "assault" was to be on me.
We spent a long time setting up the complicated shoot. After a few minutes of talking we noticed that we could divide the props into segments.
Reading on the steps to begin the walk. Throw the book. Jacket gets ripped off, rain jacket handed over. WATER BOMBS. Park scene. Skateboarder passes by. TENNIS BALLS. FRISBEE. Wedding scene. RICE. Alien steals the "husband". Confetti/Streamers. Sign. Applause. The minute is over.
Segments in which I was painfully pelted capitalized for emphasis.
We ran through the shot about 5 times so that we could get the timing perfect and everyone knew where they needed to run and what they needed to put on/throw. Thankfully the run-throughs didn’t require that I get hit with anything but the tennis balls.
Then the water balloons were filled up. I helped.
We did one more run through before time was up. We had to shoot then or never.
Everything went well. Luckily my part was simply to walk because the force and the cold behind the balloons left me dazed for the rest of the minute.
We cleaned up our mess and darted inside to develop the film. Running around to dry the film was ridiculous and went well with the events of the day.
The other group needed help so Ian got in his costume and I kicked a soccer ball around. They didn’t need anyone kicking a soccer ball around, nor did they film it, but it was a nice day and a nice ball.
I brought confetti and I even went out of my way to buy water balloons. Little did I know the "waterbombs", as they were branded, would be used against their proprietor. That's right; I was a planner in my own demise. The "assault" was to be on me.
We spent a long time setting up the complicated shoot. After a few minutes of talking we noticed that we could divide the props into segments.
Reading on the steps to begin the walk. Throw the book. Jacket gets ripped off, rain jacket handed over. WATER BOMBS. Park scene. Skateboarder passes by. TENNIS BALLS. FRISBEE. Wedding scene. RICE. Alien steals the "husband". Confetti/Streamers. Sign. Applause. The minute is over.
Segments in which I was painfully pelted capitalized for emphasis.
We ran through the shot about 5 times so that we could get the timing perfect and everyone knew where they needed to run and what they needed to put on/throw. Thankfully the run-throughs didn’t require that I get hit with anything but the tennis balls.
Then the water balloons were filled up. I helped.
We did one more run through before time was up. We had to shoot then or never.
Everything went well. Luckily my part was simply to walk because the force and the cold behind the balloons left me dazed for the rest of the minute.
We cleaned up our mess and darted inside to develop the film. Running around to dry the film was ridiculous and went well with the events of the day.
The other group needed help so Ian got in his costume and I kicked a soccer ball around. They didn’t need anyone kicking a soccer ball around, nor did they film it, but it was a nice day and a nice ball.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Video Race
I am pumped for the video race. I can’t wait to film things and video things on a film or
video camera with a big group of people over a long period of time, and know exactly which
prop will be the focus of the film long in advance.
Wait, what?
Okay, I could see working on a film solo, I’ve done that before and being lonely lends a
certain meditative vibe to the work. I can feel ya’ on the whole “do it in 48-hours thing”.
Time is money, and of the essence, and on my side and so on.
I also understand everyone having to incorporate the same prop. The honor system might
work for checking out groceries but someone would definitely start early if we didn’t have
a bottle of duck sauce/stuffed wombat/high-five machine to keep us all in line. Plus, it
will be fun to see what the other filmmakers do with the same prop.
But what exactly is this gobbledygook about “creating films/videos without a film or video camera”? Doesn’t that defy what film and video is? How can you make something without the thing that makes that something? I can’t make a pizza without an oven! Okay, I did it once- in middle school with the power of the SUN.
Perhaps I could make my movie out of the sun! The sun would be too bright for a film, let alone the contingencies of harvesting a star, and I will not sacrifice my eyesight in order to realize my vision and an “A”.
So I guess I’ll go the old fashion route- scanners, cell phones, webcams, one of these things, throw in some stop-motion and flash animation for good measure. I think the more media I can use the more interesting the film will be. Finding out the prop will probably inspire me as to the narrative or lack thereof and which medium will work best for which section.
video camera with a big group of people over a long period of time, and know exactly which
prop will be the focus of the film long in advance.
Wait, what?
Okay, I could see working on a film solo, I’ve done that before and being lonely lends a
certain meditative vibe to the work. I can feel ya’ on the whole “do it in 48-hours thing”.
Time is money, and of the essence, and on my side and so on.
I also understand everyone having to incorporate the same prop. The honor system might
work for checking out groceries but someone would definitely start early if we didn’t have
a bottle of duck sauce/stuffed wombat/high-five machine to keep us all in line. Plus, it
will be fun to see what the other filmmakers do with the same prop.
But what exactly is this gobbledygook about “creating films/videos without a film or video camera”? Doesn’t that defy what film and video is? How can you make something without the thing that makes that something? I can’t make a pizza without an oven! Okay, I did it once- in middle school with the power of the SUN.
Perhaps I could make my movie out of the sun! The sun would be too bright for a film, let alone the contingencies of harvesting a star, and I will not sacrifice my eyesight in order to realize my vision and an “A”.
So I guess I’ll go the old fashion route- scanners, cell phones, webcams, one of these things, throw in some stop-motion and flash animation for good measure. I think the more media I can use the more interesting the film will be. Finding out the prop will probably inspire me as to the narrative or lack thereof and which medium will work best for which section.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Zen and the Art of Cameraless Filmmaking
The four elements in cameraless filmmaking form. I had no idea what that would look like or how Ian and I were supposed to accomplish it. After watching the examples presented in class I got a clearer picture. Neubauer’s film was strange but more concrete that the films of Brakhage. I had viewed some of Brakhage’s films before but never within the context of aiming to create something similar.
The films of Stan Brakhage always challenged me- before it was content-wise, Brakhage’s soundless works were hailed as masterpieces by film intellectuals, including my professors, from a higher plane. It was as if it were an assignment or a test to see if I were smart enough to “get it”. In 6x1 they were presented in an even more difficult way, we were to create something in the same vein. (side note, Mr. Brakhage is presenting me a final challenge in the odd spelling of his rare last name)
After tirelessly messing with (scratching, bleaching, marking, photographing, rephotographing, taping) our film I was excited to see the thing projected. In this digital age I’m used to making a change and then obsessively checking it in context with the rest of the film instantly. (See also: Rhythmic Editing Exercise) Direct film manipulation is a last bastion of patience in the film world. Depending on their level of procrastination, students in 6x1 waited days or weeks to see the result of all their multi-media crafting. There was an air of excitement on projection day.
After some difficulties with the projector (that served to raise the tension more) our partners’ film strip was played. I can’t picture the specifics in my mind, but their bleaching was very nice and I was humbled by the work. Our film was next. Ian loaded the film and the excitement of the projector’s hum mirrored mine. I was assaulted by colors and spent most of the time trying to recognize which bits were which and then it was over. It was so fast. All those hours spent crafting gone by in one minute.
In many ways the exercise seemed Zen. You build something up only to have it destroyed. There will never again be a first time viewing of that filmstrip. We recorded it digitally, but that’s just not the same. The hum of the projector, the bits that flaked off can’t be recreated digitally or even if we run the film again. Much like a stone garden, the process, not the product, is the point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)