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".