I sat in the library tonight a short distance outside the limits of Java City Proper. While trying to read one of my textbooks (and not making much progress) a certain noise caught my ear. There the buzz of conversations was overtaken by the powerful arresting sound of
the
B.B.B.B.BL.LLLL.EEEE.nder.
The sound of the blender is a whole eleven seconds long. First the ice and other ingredients battle: smashing and crunching against each other. Then they join forces in a thick slow resistance against the blender blades. Finally the blades win and celebrate for four seconds of motorized hum. That hum has been there for the entire time but is only noticeable now that the other sounds have subsided. The hum reaches a higher pitch for five seconds then it falls immediately asleep like coming out of hyperdrive.
On the other side of me in the library there was a book reading. I didn't realize when I sat down but my temporary nesting place was diagonally behind a podium and sound system where an organization had set up to have an author read from her book. It wasn't too distracting at first but then I noticed she had a certain way of pronouncing her
SHs into the microphone
Even though the author talked about a soldier fighting in the chaos of the war in Iraq, her SHs are very calm and soothing. I hear her SH sound in worlds likeMichigan, She, Machine guns very softly alive. SH. Her voice echoes distinctly in the microphone with every other spoken syllable but her SHs are extra drawn out. SH. They sound like a swish. SH. Like a swish of soft fabric. SH. Like bing underwater and feeling the water swish aways as you kick. SH.
When she finishes reading the applause sounds like rain and I go back to reading my book.
Nearby another student studying stands up and walks towards and then past me. The odd clapping of her steps draw me from my homework and back into the odd world of sound by
flipFLOPS
When she walked, she knew what she was doing and where she was going- her pace was fast. Her shoes sounded like their name. flip FLOP. The flip is when the shoe hits the bottom of her foot. It is a muffled fleshy pop. The FLOP thuds as her shoe hits the short stubby carpet.
The rythm is lopsided; the soft flips against the rough FLOP. I don't imagine her walking straight, but waddling from side (flip) to side (FLOP) creating the unbalanced sounds.
So much for getting some reading done.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Scott MacDonald: To Lumiére
It's interesting to think about how commonplace film and motion picture media has become over time. An audience nowadays goes into a theater or views a youtube video with certain unconscious expectations. Image quality, length, subject matter- these are the things our eyes see without even thinking that it's only shadows on a screen. We've been so conditioned to just accept that we're watching something we forget how amazing it is in concept. I wonder what it would be like to see a movie for the first time, or to watch a tv show for the first time. What is the novelty we look for now beyond the novelty of film itself?
Is it a burden to filmmakers to have an audience be able to realize the 4.5 second close up of the red envelope from the opening means that envelope holds the long lost will of the old rich coot that everyone's looking for? Maybe this does restrict some filmmakers from being original, or from telling their story in a fresh way because they need to cling to that structure with all its patented visual cues.
Or maybe it give the filmmaker free range to play with those expectations. Once you know what's expected, you can play into those expectations or just take a rocket ship in the other direction.
Is it a burden to filmmakers to have an audience be able to realize the 4.5 second close up of the red envelope from the opening means that envelope holds the long lost will of the old rich coot that everyone's looking for? Maybe this does restrict some filmmakers from being original, or from telling their story in a fresh way because they need to cling to that structure with all its patented visual cues.
Or maybe it give the filmmaker free range to play with those expectations. Once you know what's expected, you can play into those expectations or just take a rocket ship in the other direction.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Hans Richter: "At such golden times, film entertainment and film art might become identical."
"This institution has to avoid moving away from the traditional forms of story-telling to which the maximum number of people are conditioned: the theater, with the supremacy of the actor, and the novel or the play, with the writer."
Amalgamate is one of my favorite words. and that's what film does, it amalgamates: "it mixes or merges so as to make a combination; blend; unite; combine." while there are things in the film world that can only belong there, a great deal of it is simply the natural evolution of storytelling. if theater and photography are the parents of film, literature and painting are the grandparents of film, and cave drawings or tribal dances and ancient epic tales that were told around hearths ages ago are the great great grandparents of film. And all are just ways of mankind trying to bestow meaning on existence. (But that's a whole other question)
Back to amalgamate. Richter is right in the sense that film has a tendency to take from other forms. It does however have its own unique qualities. Film's greatest techniques are being able to reproduce the illusion of motion and to montage and cut to another image. The perspective of being able to capture or view motion from more than one angle (as opposed to theater which is only one angle) creates a genuine intimacy that is unique to film. The contrast that is then implemented through editing is unique to film. Where photography and art had previously presented one image or object for consideration, film is able to present more than one image in conjunction with another and subsequently create another meaning through that contrast.
Experimental film has tested the boundaries of these techniques and strayed from those that the other forms of art have. It strays from a central narrative and protagonist. It presents images and motion that have no specific role or part. It explores the primary techniques of film outside of the context of story. Perhaps understanding is overrated and bewilderment is underrated.
Amalgamate is one of my favorite words. and that's what film does, it amalgamates: "it mixes or merges so as to make a combination; blend; unite; combine." while there are things in the film world that can only belong there, a great deal of it is simply the natural evolution of storytelling. if theater and photography are the parents of film, literature and painting are the grandparents of film, and cave drawings or tribal dances and ancient epic tales that were told around hearths ages ago are the great great grandparents of film. And all are just ways of mankind trying to bestow meaning on existence. (But that's a whole other question)
Back to amalgamate. Richter is right in the sense that film has a tendency to take from other forms. It does however have its own unique qualities. Film's greatest techniques are being able to reproduce the illusion of motion and to montage and cut to another image. The perspective of being able to capture or view motion from more than one angle (as opposed to theater which is only one angle) creates a genuine intimacy that is unique to film. The contrast that is then implemented through editing is unique to film. Where photography and art had previously presented one image or object for consideration, film is able to present more than one image in conjunction with another and subsequently create another meaning through that contrast.
Experimental film has tested the boundaries of these techniques and strayed from those that the other forms of art have. It strays from a central narrative and protagonist. It presents images and motion that have no specific role or part. It explores the primary techniques of film outside of the context of story. Perhaps understanding is overrated and bewilderment is underrated.
festos
i love explaining things almost as much as i love hearing others explain things.
Here's a itty bitty bio:1. birth. pittsburgh, pa. lil bro, lil sis. good times. read lots and lots of books. acted several out with help of bro and sis. 2. high school. moved to cary, nc. began working in independent theater, Galaxy Cinema. was awarded jedi trophy for employee of the month.3. college. uncw. got sucked into the wacky world of cucalorus where i have remained for the past three years. 4. future. afraid, very afraid.
Manifest, manifest, manifest-o. cheery, cheery, cheery-o.
I've often told people that I want to be a filmmaker because I love stories. This is a lie. I want to be a filmmaker because I love people's reactions to stories. Whether it's a magazine article or a billboard or song on the radio or tv show or film, the best part of any media is the reaction each person has to it. When you can experience a new perspective or vision or story your mind's eye is opened a little more, your understanding of the world is a little bit more complete.
Unfortunately a lot of media is one-sided, you can't respond directly to it. If the content so provokes them a person could write a letter to the editor or the company or sing along or share and rewatch. But the best response is the unconscious connections made between what we are made to experience and what we choose to experience.
When you're watching a film and you're completely drawn in, fascinated and unable to be torn from the screen for whatever reason-that is the moment I want. The moment of complete connection with a moving image. That almost impossible bond when the screen and audience, viewed and viewer, specactle and spectator interact and one is changed because of it.
A while ago I forgot why I wanted to do this. Film studies can seem like a completely self indulgent study, what does it really do to help anyone? Change anything? Contribute more than a few forgettable scenes when compared to the enormity of the rest of life? I was in a hostel in Ireland travelling when I met a woman who was in the same room as me. As she packed up from her one-night stay I shared my trouble with her. She told me she was a nurse. She saw patient after patient every day of the week, who knows how many different people she met in a year, how many people she took care of. People from all over, from all different walks of life, different careers, families, lifestyles. But the one thing that seemed to connect all of them was the films they saw and shows they watched. Through that they could relate to the nurses that tended to them, the doctors that diagnosed them, the other patients they met. Film and tv was the medium through which strangers could find a common ground.
Later that night, while sipping on the best beer in the world, I met a Kiwi and the first thing I said to her was how I loved her country because of Lord of the Rings. Soon our conversation was joined by several others and it seemed that the nurse knew what she was talking about.
Here's a itty bitty bio:1. birth. pittsburgh, pa. lil bro, lil sis. good times. read lots and lots of books. acted several out with help of bro and sis. 2. high school. moved to cary, nc. began working in independent theater, Galaxy Cinema. was awarded jedi trophy for employee of the month.3. college. uncw. got sucked into the wacky world of cucalorus where i have remained for the past three years. 4. future. afraid, very afraid.
Manifest, manifest, manifest-o. cheery, cheery, cheery-o.
I've often told people that I want to be a filmmaker because I love stories. This is a lie. I want to be a filmmaker because I love people's reactions to stories. Whether it's a magazine article or a billboard or song on the radio or tv show or film, the best part of any media is the reaction each person has to it. When you can experience a new perspective or vision or story your mind's eye is opened a little more, your understanding of the world is a little bit more complete.
Unfortunately a lot of media is one-sided, you can't respond directly to it. If the content so provokes them a person could write a letter to the editor or the company or sing along or share and rewatch. But the best response is the unconscious connections made between what we are made to experience and what we choose to experience.
When you're watching a film and you're completely drawn in, fascinated and unable to be torn from the screen for whatever reason-that is the moment I want. The moment of complete connection with a moving image. That almost impossible bond when the screen and audience, viewed and viewer, specactle and spectator interact and one is changed because of it.
A while ago I forgot why I wanted to do this. Film studies can seem like a completely self indulgent study, what does it really do to help anyone? Change anything? Contribute more than a few forgettable scenes when compared to the enormity of the rest of life? I was in a hostel in Ireland travelling when I met a woman who was in the same room as me. As she packed up from her one-night stay I shared my trouble with her. She told me she was a nurse. She saw patient after patient every day of the week, who knows how many different people she met in a year, how many people she took care of. People from all over, from all different walks of life, different careers, families, lifestyles. But the one thing that seemed to connect all of them was the films they saw and shows they watched. Through that they could relate to the nurses that tended to them, the doctors that diagnosed them, the other patients they met. Film and tv was the medium through which strangers could find a common ground.
Later that night, while sipping on the best beer in the world, I met a Kiwi and the first thing I said to her was how I loved her country because of Lord of the Rings. Soon our conversation was joined by several others and it seemed that the nurse knew what she was talking about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
