Pine Flat

Pine flat starts with a breathtaking image in the winter of rolling hills with snow covered pines. The snow is falling very fast and compiling quickly. In the background you can hear a small girl yelling “Ethan! Where are you!” “Ethan come back!”. This image is so powerful combined with the drone of the little girl made it so I could look at the shot for an hour and be completely satisfied. I did not get to look at it for an hour but I did get to look at it for ten minutes until it went to the next locked shot which was of a girl reading a book in a green grassy field. The contrast of this shot to the first shot was amazing. I felt as if I was watching the discovery channel and they were showing my the variant seasons. The girl is reading a book in the high weeds and doesn’t look completely comfortable so this was a tough sell to me. It was tough to believe she does something like this often. This shot also lasts ten minutes long before moving on to the next. The next shot is a great show of a small stream with moss covered rocks. Sitting on a log stump right in the middle of the stream is a small shirtless boy playing harmonica, the only time he stops is to slap the bugs off of him. It was about half way through this scene that I realized this whole film was going to be comprised of ten minute shots with a ten minute intermission in the middle. I then realized that for me the images very vivid enough to remember after only a couple minutes. I became really bored with the film and questioned how it took her three years to make. I came to the conclusion that the variant seasons would be the only thing allowing this film to take such a long period of time. The most memorably image to me was the last shot from part one of the viewing. It was a small boy waiting with his backpack, in the distance there is a gorgeous winding road that travels up and around the hills. You see a small speck that is a car or truck that travels along the road and after it leaves the frame there is about four minutes of silence before you hear the rumbling of a school bus pull up. You never see the bus close up you just see the kid walk out of frame and hear the doors open then close. Then you hear the bus drive away. This was easily the single most powerful image; this told a story to me more than most of the other shots combined.

I think Lockhart did a great job of capturing a small community like that, but with the choreography of her previously viewed film it only made me wonder how choreographed this film was. If these are activities that these kids actually take place in then it is a great way to show it. I think that the ten minute shots were very extreme and could have been five minutes or less. It has a great contrast quality and the colors are amazing. Even though I despised the fact each shot was ten minutes I can still remember each image with striking detail and I am sure it is due to that technique.

Moffet, Goss, Stark, Worden

It was interesting seeing Jean Genet in Chicago because it seemed like a historical documentary, I felt like I was learning facts. The whole time through the video I was trying to figure out whether or not the masks were actually being worn or digitally composited on the subjects. I came to the conclusion that they were indeed wearing the masks.

Even though the subjects were wearing the Jean Genet masks, I couldn't help but wonder who was underneath them. There was a mystery to it, which I actually liked. I think that the masks did a great job of representing Jean Genet's social awkwardness. I do not know if that was their sole intention but that is what came across to me.

We also watched a stranger comes to town by Jacquelin Goss. I remember earlier in the year watching "there there square" which almost all the students in the class I talked to hated it. I didn't mind it so much. I thought it was something new. With this new piece we screened I often found myself really bored. I understand that she was using the characters of World or Warcraft to tell actually pretty serious personal stories but I thought it was a little bit too much. Don't get me wrong it was a great way to integrate digital culture with todays issues but to go as far as to use the characters to tell a story was a little much. I couldn't help but wonder how copyright laws would allow that either, with such a popular game world wide. Her use of the characters did however make them seem like outsides and somewhat reminded me of the masks that were used in Jean Genet goes to Chicago. I much prefer there there square to this video, I think that the integration with 3D was a great way to tell the story of these people but I also think it could of been done without video games just because I think the fact that it was a videogame did not add anything (even though that game is played worldwide, which would help a little), then again its not my creativity that made this. Its Jaquelin's.

More than Meets the eye was long but did get a reaction out of me. At first I didn't understand if he had wrote the lines that he was saying or not. They sounded so creepy but then again a guy in a 70's workout outfit talking at all now days would be creepy. When you find out it was letters and things Jane Fonda had said (after Carl told us) then the video takes on a new light. I like the fact that he is doing her workout video through the whole video. I also like how you also never really see the tv and when you do its not even on.

Sharon Lockhart

Goshogaoka was shown in class today.

It was Sharon Lockhart's creative work from a travel to Japan. It is a film about a girls Japanese basketball teams warm ups. It was Shot by a 16mm film camera that was fixed. It was also choreographed. One thing that really interested me was that behind the basketball court the camera was perfectly framed on a stage that was behind the court. The thick red curtains closed but none the less it set the stage (basketball court) for a performance. I think it was great, and almost ironic that this choreographed routine be shot on a court in front of a stage.

The big argument was, does this show us anything about Japanese adaptation of an American sport. At first I thought it did but the more I though about it the more I disagreed. This is an American sport being brought into a different culture yes but it doesn't tell us about their adaptation for a couple reasons. One being that it was staged, the second being that it was choreographed by someone who was not Japanese. I think if this film was shot in Germany it would be a little different but other than a few small details it is not going to be dramatically different with the same Choreography. The one thing I thought that showed us something about the Japanese culture was the massage after the warm ups. How do I know this is something they do though? This could be Choreographed, I doubt it is but even so, it tells me very little.

Many argue that this is a strict regiment that no American girls would do. This may be true, but they are acting essentially. If given the time and practice I think it would be very similar if an American girls team would do this warm up. The Japanese team reminded me of a military. Not laughing staying quiet, doing what was told. If they screwed up to get up and try again without laughing. Even if that was not staged, it still tells me very little. Not enough to make a whole film about. The film would of been much stronger had they let the girls do their normal routine, if the message they were trying to get across was indeed the adaptation of culture. Who really knows.

Montgomery...

Jennifer Montgomery came to class and screened her work.

It was interesting in that this is how I pictured experimental work being before I cam to UWM. I thought it would be awkward, it would test my thoughts on whats right and wrong. Also that I would hate it.

Jennifer Montgomery showed us three films that she made. How to Use Equipment was the first film which I actually liked a lot. I thought the humor was conveyed really well and that it was a funny little piece. Age 12: Love with a Little L was the second film we watched. It was Montgomery depicting lesbian sexuality at an early age. I thought that this was an extremely odd piece. It was filled with jump cuts non-relational scenes (to the viewer at least) and included of course public urination. I have no idea why her pieces included urination. She gave an explanation but it did not suit my needs. I don't think that its needed to show anything. Especially when it shows one girl urinating on the back of another girl, I suppose I will never fully understand that use of bodily fluids in film...

Notes on the Death of Kodachrome, this could of been a great film to me if it would of cut out the first part. I think the film should of went straight into the interviews and it would of been really strong. The first half did not really tie in at all, I honestly felt like I was watching a double feature. I felt as if she just spliced two of her films together. The most memorable scene from the beginning of course being the girl painting with her menstrual blood. I don't know if it was me being a guy but I found it repulsive. I don't know why that was needed especially in this film. I feel like Montgomery is afraid of making something without bodily fluids or something that wont be socially awkward. The interviews were extremely strong, and the fact that she created her dream in the end was very intriguing. I wasn't sure if she was going to show us the dream or not. The interesting part is that she portrayed the dream almost exactly how I pictured it when she described it earlier in the film. I just wish she would of cut out the beginning part and made it it's own film.

Jennifer Montgomery as a person seemed really interesting. It seemed to me that she was really protective of her art. A student asked if she appeared in one of her pieces and she said ".....yeah..... why, what is that supposed to mean". The student was referring to a piece that there was nudity in and I am sure he wanted to know if it was her. The way she acted to that one question surprised me. She did not say it in a nice or jokingly way, it was an a angry tone, not one thats used to answer a questions.

Jennifer Montgomery, tested my ability to understand what art is. I hated her work, but after much thought thats exactly what I expected. Finally I have seen something that really tested me and made me wonder what I think and what other people think is art. For that I thank her.

Hamiltion vs. Doest

After watching Matthew Porterfield's Hamilton I could not help but think about the film Doest that we watched in class. There are many differences but there are also many similarities. In the experimental world I think that neither film adamantly crosses over the narrative barrier to that category. Doest to me is more of a time period piece, a historical piece one might say. It has long shots of real people that are not acting, so it is almost a documentary type of view. Hamilton is actors trying to portray emotion on screen.

There are many similarities between the two though. Doest and Hamilton share a lot of lengthy shots. They have very long shots, a lot of them being fixed camera where it will sit on a person for a substantial amount of time. In both films it allows us to get a good idea of the people they are portraying. Both films also have lack of dialog. In Hamilton there are almost no lines and all of the emotion and conversations don't even need to take place. Almost all the emotions can be derived from the body language or lack there of. In doest there is no dialog, all the emotion is conveyed through blank stares. Being around the Cold War, thats exactly how I would of pictured them to act, it was a great way to capture the emotion of the people.

Both films to me were very interesting but very long. I think that the directors were able to get their message across in a lot shorter of a time then they actually used. Ackerman's was more bearable to watch because I had some interest in the actual historical reference of the post Cold War. Porterfield's Hamilton was a story to me of modern day America, and a modern day love story.

I also think both films tell the story of a time period. Hamilton is a love story that could really happen no other time then right now. It is capturing the generational love of now. Not all love stories today are like that of course, but the story of Joe and Lena happens only within the past 10 years. Doest of course telling the story of the post cold war that shows how people felt at that point in time. Even the glimpses of kids sledding told a story of a future generation to come. Both These pieces were very time period oriented.

Thesis:
Ackerman and Porterfield use the tools of length and lack of dialog to convey true human emotion in their films Doest and Hamilton.