Deren and Brakhage

This week was odd.

I think I'll start with Maya Deren. This was the first time in our class I watched a film and wasn't struggling to make a story out of it. It seemed like a lot of people in class had their own ideas of what was going on within these short films, but I truly watched them and thought a lot about what the camera was doing, and what film in general can do that no other art form can. I tried to kind of strip my mind of everything I think about film, and think about it different. What I mean is, I tried to imagine how revolutionary the camera and film must have been for audiences that weren't used to the special effects our generation knows so well. Nothing phases us in movies any more, because we know that with computers, anything is possible on screen. But it's interesting to think about what is possible with only a camera, no other technology.

I noticed quirks about the camera right off the bat. The very first shot in "Meshes of the Afternoon" showed an arm lowering a flower onto pavement-- pretty simple. But it was shot in such a way that it appeared the arm was unnaturally long, almost creepy. Without any special effects, I believed that this arm was inhuman. We talked about the effect of the tilting camera on the staircase in class. With just an easy tilted back and forth of the camera, audiences experience the sensation of walking-- and truly believing the staircase is tilting, throwing this woman around.



There were so many images captured in this movie that could be captured by no other medium in the art world. Only with a camera can we watch waves rolling and not hear their crash, see them go in reverse and retreat from the shore, or see them slow down to an unnatural pace, inching forward. Only through film can we experience a dancer frozen in midair, suspended for seconds, and then fall to the ground at true speed and continue on.

I feel like Maya Deren really made me see the uniqueness of film as an art form. It is the only thing that can capture 'reality' as we see it. It is the only medium that can capture the movement of a curtain blowing the wind-- something so uncomplicated yet in a way revolutionary. In her essay she discussed the manipulation of time and space through film. These days we take for granted that manipulation I think, creating entire new worlds and creatures with computers. It was cool to see how with only a camera, an audience can be coerced into suspending their disbelief that reality has been stretched and made unfamiliar.



Stan Brakhage's creations also provided a completely new experience for me in film. His were even harder to dissect and take in than Deren's. First I want to talk about his 'Mothlight', the one I liked the most (I know I'm not supposed to say that, but I can't think of another way). I admit, when Mothlight started I was like "Ok... this is weird." After a few moments I was kind of looking around the classroom, wondering when it would end. Then I remembered what Dr. McRae told us about Brakhage's intentions for his audience with his films-- that he wanted the audience to be as close to the visual experience as possible with as little distraction as possible. After remembering that, I forced myself to focus on the screen and not look away. The sensation of this was cool- it was like feeling the texture of a moth with my eyes. There were no true images of a moth, but just with abstractions the 'feeling of moth' was communicated.

We talked so much about 'Window Water Baby Moving' in class that I don't want to focus very much on it. What I will say is that it made me experience childbirth in a way that I never had before in any film-- whether some stupid romantic comedy or 'The Miracle of Life' in high school Bio. I think I might need to still mull this one over before I know what to truly make of it.

Deren and Brakhage's works are much to take in for the untrained eye. As Brakhage wrote, his films are for an audience with a developed optical mind, those who have perception that is deep and original. I feel like I qualify for none of these things, but just to begin to try has been fun and interesting.

La Dolce Vita!

So, I'm struggling with this movie a little bit; I think because we weren't able to talk about it in class, the reading was a difficult read for me, and it's just ridiculous to me that I'm sitting in my living room at home on spring break trying to think about this movie, and not on campus. I'm going to give it a go anyway...

To me, this film was just a massive array of fashion, women, parties, sex, alcohol, dysfunctional relationships, and oddly-- religion. Throughout the entire three hours, I felt like I wasn't quite sure what I should feel, or what the movie was supposed to make me feel I guess. Was it praising this loose lifestyle that was all fun and games and no morals? Was is criticizing it? I didn't know.

I knew Marcello was our main character, but I never felt like we were completely in his point of view. It was more like we were watching him, we were never shown clearly how he felt about his life. On top of this, he was quite confusing! There are times when we watch him struggle, seeming to question his journalism career and it's worth. In the end though, he switches from journalism to public relations (I think?) which to me just seems like a move toward digging himself deeper into this life dictated by celebrity "high life".

We also saw Marcello's relationship with his girlfriend Emma. At times it seemed like he truly cared for her, but then he would just go and treat her like complete crap again. Emma was the only character who seemed truly concerned with love, emotion, and moral value, but she was so over-the-top with her own emotions that it was impossible to appreciate her. Then there is Marcello's relationship with Maddalena, who tells Marcello she loves him while being seduced by another man simultaneously.

The religious aspects of the film were especially hard for me to grasp. I could easily see how people thought the film was doing nothing more than mocking Catholicism. The way I took it was that like all else in the film, religion became a hype and no longer a moral lifestyle. Especially in the "miracle" scene, which was just so ridiculous-- these people cared about the shock of a possible miracle, the hype and publicity surrounding it, but not the meaning of it (although it's quite obviously a farce anyway).

I'm not exactly sure where to go from here. I feel like I have much more to say, but I have no clue what direction to go in with my thoughts. This week made me realize how helpful our class discussion is. I'll leave this here and maybe with some comments and advice I can refine my interpretations a bit more. Thanks!

Last Year at Marienbad

I'm gonna go with Dr. McRae on this one and say that in a way, I loved this movie, but I also hated it. I'm not going to lie and say it wasn't extremely difficult to keep myself awake for the whole thing. I was really glad that we were told beforehand to not try to understand what was going on, but rather take it in and enjoy it. That, "Oh my god, I need to analyze this movie in the exact right way because it's for a class" feeling was swept away and I was sort of able to ask myself what I thought of the movie and what I got out of it.

The first thing I noticed and enjoyed was the poetic, sensual language. Those first lines, repeated over and over again, were so descriptive and full of imagery. Although they didn't really tell a story, they gave vivid pictures accompanied by true images of the castle/hotel. I thought this sort of language continued throughout the film-- many of X's lines were like little pictures or little scraps of memory. If you put them together you'd be left with a loose, unfinished and unreliable story, but if you didn't try so hard you could just take in the descriptions and images that went along with them.

The odd narrative was something I could almost grasp, but the other abnormal things having to do with filming really threw me for a loop. The thing I noticed most was the stilted, artificial acting-- which really shoved in your face that this story is not real life, it is a film. As the camera travels around the hotel, and we are presumably seeing things through X's eyes, the people and conversations around him are so stop-and-go. The people are almost like statues, just waiting for their lines and then returning to their static poses. Then there is a scene where X recalls seeing A on the balcony above the garden a year earlier; he narrates the memory as if it is merely stage directions, and A reacts as if she is an amateur actress reading a script for the first time, responding rigidly to the directions. Moments like this, to me, really emphasized that X is possibly constructing false memories in his head as he goes along, and these things may not have truly happened-- but we will never truly know.

In class we discussed the game that is played and constantly won by M. To me, this game is a reflection of the high-class, elite lifestyle carried on by most of the hotel's inhabitants. It is a game of form and rigidity, and it is played over and over again with the same outcome each time. This seems to be what drives X crazy about the people surrounding him, and is what makes him question the reality of it all. X attempts to win the game more than once, but no matter what moves he makes he cannot-- like we said in class, this seems to represent the fact that despite his efforts, X cannot figure out a way to escape this Cartesian life that tortures him.



Another recurring image that caught my attention was the statue of the man and woman. X and A discuss the statue, trying to figure out what exactly is happening between the two sculpted figures-- is the man protecting the woman from something or is the woman pulling the man back in an attempt to save him? The answer is unclear. This is also how I saw the relationship between X and A-- was X trying to save A from an elitist, redundant life or was he hoping A could save him from his own mind and affirm that his existence is not the only true life or true reality? In a way both seem true; A is the only other hotel guest X sees that seems to have qualities of life and freedom, and he clings to this hoping she will free him from the solipsism that tortures him.


The thought of solipsism is really cool to me. I get almost a weird pleasure freaking myself out thinking about it. To think that every being around me might just be a construct of my own mind, and mine is the only true reality, is really freaking berserk. Anyway, I think I will end here before I start confusing myself too much...