The Yes Men

I really enjoyed the documentary, though it did drag in places. The subject matter was good, but as a film it lingered for too long on certain topics or scenes that neither informed the audience nor moved the narrative ahead. Like the rest of the class, I was surprised that the group was able to carry out some of these presentations without legal repercussions. There seemed to be no doubt that they were claiming to be representatives of the WTO and speaking on behalf of the organization. I would certainly think that this would be illegal in some way, as it is slanderous at the least. I felt that what the men were doing was a waste of energy, as the WTO was founded to promote business, and is not primarily a humanitarian organization. Localized aid in business growth to developing countries would be more beneficial in my view than basing global trade policy on the vulnerabilities or weakness of a few. It is easy to say that the WTO cares only about globalization of markets- this is like saying that the NRA only cares about the right to bear arms and is unconcerned with how they are used- well duh. If you really wanted to do something about it, start your own opposing organization. And I'm sure I'm the only one who thinks this, but if we are able to recycle water, why were all those people up in arms about the recycled food? If it was proven to be sanitary and healthy, I would have no problem with this. But more to the point, this exageration is is not even a parody of any specific WTO program or policy, but simply an emotionally charged topic that addresses no real issue. But I digress, as I have just noticed that the topic is how this relates to project five. The Yes Men present their agenda through the guise of their opposition, making a more memorable and powerful message. In film, we can do the same thing by re-arranging media to present a new message. This essentially allows us to speak through anyone or anything we wish to add new layers of meaning that would not be present had we simply filmed ourselves speaking on a topic.

Moltov Man

The idea of ownership is fundamental to the operation of any market, for why create if you are unable to reap the benefits of your own work? Although it is true that ownership of any creation, whether tangible or not, is the cornerstone of art and business, there is also the gray area of re-contextualization and the use of common themes. In the Little Mermaid video we watched in class, for instance, the use of the image was very obviously taken from a different source to be used in parody. I do think, though, that is films such as this are distributed for profit, there is a real problem. Whether or not the use of the mermaid in the example was an obvious re-contextualization, Disney spent both time and money creating the image that is used, even if it is only a single frame. So although I did enjoy the film, I completely understand Disney's perspective and right to protect their intellectual property.
What is funny to me is the ways that companies can blatantly steal the storyline of a film. In any Blockbuster you go to, you will see such quality films as "Snakes on a Train" or "King of the Lost World", a blatant theft of King Kong. If anything, I think that we need stricter laws for situations like these, which seem to somehow slip through the cracks of the current system. Of course, there will always be recurrent themes throughout the canon of fictional works, but this is very different than an obvious attempt to capitalize on a popular item/work of art by creating a near clone.

Okay, so this finally worked. It took a few attempts and quite some time, but here we go:

Cameraless Filmmaking

I have loved learning alternative methods to creating films through the the various techniques we have learned so far. One of the nicest aspects is that this type of film making does not require a crew of any kind. Although I love working with others in a crew, it is nice to have so much control and to be able to produce a complete work without relying on others. Making films this way is just fun too. You don't have the pressure of creating a film that has a certain lighting ratio or worrying about actors. I have already found that your mistakes when using some of these techniques could end up being your favorite segment of a film.
The magazine transfers have probably been my favorite topic so far. The patters you can create are beautiful on the strip, so I can't wait to see them projected. For my own strips, I chose a theme of sorts. All my pieces related to political issues, such as gasoline company logos and typed words like "war". When the strips were projected, I was able to spot my transfers, but the words were not really readable, which I kind of expected. I was able to pick out the word "Independence", but that was about it.
The painting was fun, but I definitely prefer some of the other techniques we have learned, such as scratching and transfers. I don't think I'm really a painter, and my segment of the painted leader did not end up looking the way I had hoped. I think the problem may have been in my use of the oil. Some of the areas would bead immediately, and then I would suddenly be drawing a thick line down the strip. It ended up ok, but I had to layer other colors on top of the mess I had created. Again, I recognized my section of the strip, and it looked exactly as I expected- an explosion of Christmas.
I enjoyed the x-ray effect we produced last class, but I prefer to have more control over the image. For some reason, one end of our strip did not develop properly. I think that maybe the cell phone closed early or was lifted away as it neared the end of the strip. The majority of the exercise turned out really well though, and produced some cool effects. I really liked what one of the groups near us produced using some larger objects like a key. This also afforded a greater degree of control than I was able to get using the tiny seeds and sparkles.
Developing our own film was a valuable experience that I had not had before. I had always wondered how to do it- I mean, I understood what to do, but the actual implementation is always a different experience than reading the directions.
I had never realized everything that was involved in the making of this type of film. I also didn't know how hands-on the processes were. I find it really interesting what this type of physical manipulation can create versus the control afforded by computer animations. I am in a motion graphics class right now, and though the intended final product is very different, I don't think that a computer could create something as visceral or natural looking- at least not today. This also gives this style a retro feel that I really like.

Reading Response 1

I have seen several Brakhage films since coming to Wilmington, and I can say without hesitation that they are among the strangest I have ever watched. I have never really liked his work, though that may be because his films were among the first experimental works I watched. After seeing movies like "Window, Water, Baby, Moving", I always pictured Brakhage as some reclusive weirdo, or artistic elitist. His personality really comes through in parts of his writing, though, and paint a much more sociable picture of the filmmaker.
I particularly enjoyed the section on the screening of Anger's film requiring three sychronized projectors. It really showed that more than anything, filmmakers of all genres must be problem solvers. It was funny to me that filmmakers of such renown had to deal with technical failures, just as I have. I suppose it shouldn't be suprising, but it really seemed to humanize and put a face of sorts on Brakhage.
When reading, it becomes evident that Brakhage is the sort of person who makes lemonade of lemons. His suggestion of using the technique from class was mentioned as a project that could be used before acquiring a camera. I really like that he is someone who works within the limitations he is presented to create something alltogether different and unexpected.
Brakhage is certainly well versed in the technical side of film, though as I hope to be a DP in the future, I cringe at his advice to light by eye and throw away the light meter. His practical approach to teaching is welcome, however, and gives clear cause and effect reasoning rather than unintelligable technical jargon. I get the impression that the majority of his technical knowledge was through practical experimentation, so this would make sense.
One nice thing about this genre and this reading is that it causes you to consider artistic uses for things such as focus that are usually fairly procedural in the making of narrative films. I feel that in trying to match the imagery of Hollywood narrative films, we often see only one use for many aspects of filmaking. As cliche as it may be, making films as Brakhage does requires that one "Think outside the box".
I also like the section on the myth of film projection's beginnings. Having taken film history certainly added to the story, and its plausability.
Completeing the exercise in class today made the reading much more understandable. It was interesting to think that we were using the same techniques as Brakhage and other filmmakers who are now shown as examples of entire genres at schools around the country. Perhaps only in this genre do we have the same equipment and limitations of the most well known filmmakers. Granted, part of the aforementioned filmmakers notariety is based on their innovation and development of new techniques and ways of pushing the medium. The only things stopping us, however, is time and thought.
Of course, being a well-known experimental filmmaker is a very relative statement, as most people would never know who Anger or Brakhage are. In his writing, Brakhage mentions a screening of Anger's film at which a total of fifteen people were in attendance. He writing seems to say that this didn't matter, rather the emotional impact of the film's screening. This is is the kind of passion required to make it in any type of film, but it seems to me that it would be a requirement to acheive contentment in such a small niche of the film market.
In any case, Brakhage seems much more "real" to me now, and more "Down to earth".

Assignment 1

I do not typically find experimental films entertaining or engrossing, but I did like the film we watched in class. The movement in the film seemed to have a hypnotic quality, and was engaging in that I was looking for patterns to emerge throughout the showing. Though I never was able to find any predictable patterns, the film did seem to move through stages with repeated motifs. The found footage of the man and the children, for instance, or the large numbers. None of the images seemed to relate to the soundtrack at all, excepting one sequence in which the beat of the music was accompanied by flashes of white dots. This sequence stood out in my mind, maybe because it finally showed a relationship between sound and image, and a pattern. I did begin to think that maybe numbers were related to time, and the footage of the people showed aging, but that is, of course, purely speculation.
My feelings towards the film seemed to change periodically, just as the film seemed to move through different segments. I felt anywhere from completely lost in the film, just watching without thinking, to being bored to the point of distraction. I did enjoy the majority of the film, but there were stretches that became quite arduous to watch.