I AM DOING WORK -- NOW SHH, I'M WATCHING A MOVIE

Final Experiment: Pick a clip from Man With a Movie Camera and make your own interpretation of it. 

Clip used: EIGHT, 142

Modernity in the 21st century is a reckless socialization that never stops when we believe we are coming to an impact with something, like the man coming into contact with the train). Technological products all face a type of impact which they need to overcome (be it a glitch, a virus, aging parts) in order to successfully transform into something better. In Vertov’s Kinoks Manifesto, he implicitly states that “my path leads to creation of a fresh perception of the world. I decipher in a new way a world unknown to you” (Vertov 18) In regards to my film, this means that the path of the car coming toward me is not actually a fatal accident waiting to happen, but rather a chance for me to alter my fate and create a more successful outcome because my perception of the impact is not fatality but evolution. Rather than having a train approach me (trains not being a common piece of transportation anymore – there are more cars on the road, hence the modernity), a bulky dark car comes towards me and before actual impact, it changes into a silver, shiny car which then drives away, signifying the active involvement in the evolution of my own fate. Changing the way I decipher the actions coming towards me changes the way I see the outcome, and I saw it as a transformation into modernity and softening the kinks to come out with a new perception of the car. The first clip is in black/white because I see the car as a typical problem coming toward me, but the car driving away is in colour because it signifies the alteration to my perception of the impact and the successful outcome.

In taking a video of the car, I also believe that it is a further understanding of the culture and society around me. Cars are a constant addition to our everyday lives which we have now become accustomed to. The incoming car is like attempting to understand the world which is steadily coming toward us; and rather than being knocked over by the experience, I have taken it into my own hands. Using my own interpretation of the event, I have changed my fate into a silver car that then drives away. “The presentation of even the most ordinary things will take on an exceptionally fresh and interesting aspect” (19), and the presentation of the ordinary car takes on a new aspect according to how I decided to portray the situation.

Dear Nick,

        Before I got into this course, contemporary cinema encompassed movies that were affecting society in modern day and age. But with the films we’ve seen over the past twelve weeks, apparently my definition of contemporary cinema is much different than yours … or completely wrong altogether.

Computer Chess has completely challenged my idea of “contemporary” because it’s a film that deals with tech nerds from the 1980s. That’s not contemporary. That’s completely opposite. The “technical nerds challenging computer chess programs against one another” theme of film is not typically adopted by modern creators because it isn’t seen as something that would attract the attention of a large audience. That’s also another relation to contemporary cinema: entertaining a large mass of people. And again, that seems to not be a typical descriptor of contemporary cinema. The directing of the film was in a documentary style and hand-held camera, which, unless a horror movie, is not typical of “mainstream” cinema. I guess that’s another synonym of contemporary cinema: mainstream.

During the seventh week of classes, we watched Me and You and Everyone We Know. This movie was definitely something I would categorize as contemporary cinema, although some parts of it were odd for the typical mainstream crowd. The camera was not hand-held and gave the movie a more “professional” feel that the “unprofessional” camera-work of Christine (played by Miranda July). That’s another idea which I seem to connect with contemporary cinema. Hand-held camera work is typically not regarded as contemporary cinema, whereas the still camera with in-sync sound has a professional polish that is a typical quality of contemporary cinema. The movie was funny yet realistic, and completely upholds my understanding of contemporary cinema.

The first true film that we watched in this course (yes, I know, I’m making the statement that Man with a Movie Camera is not a real film – only because it completely goes against my understanding of what a “film” is. It’s got no dialogue, no overarching theme apart from a dude with a camera, and no true transition between the scenes filmed. If anything, it’s more of an experiment that someone put together. It’s a video) was Upstream Color and this film both agrees with my understanding of contemporary cinema and contradicts it. The camera work is professional (which I know is shocking seeing as they only used a single relatively-decent priced camera and such a small crew) and the sound is accurately produced to allow audiences to hear everything that the characters hear, like the humming of the electrical pole. But on the other hand, the circular production of the film, and the subtle cues that connected the underlying theme of the film made it something that wasn’t typical of my idea of contemporary cinema.

Experiment: “Montage Apocalypse” – make a youtube video (< 5 mins) comprised of apocalyptic imagery and music. Your rationale should contextualize this piece with Zizek or Rombes (Virtual Humanism). 

Experiment: iPod Experiment

Movie Chosen: Ella Enchanted (2004)

Music Chosen: Duke Ellington’s Columbia & RCA Original Masters (1932-1939)

In re-watching Ella Enchanted (a movie I’ve seen at least 25 times a large number of times) with the Duke Ellington soundtrack overtop, the movie gave a new perspective on the overall themes. I chose Duke Ellington because his music doesn’t have an oral emphasis due to his being an orchestral jazz composer/conductor. Since I have seen the movie so many times, I wanted a soundtrack that didn’t take too much away from the dialogue (even when muted) because I knew I would still be following along via lip-reading and memorization of the words.

Specifically, the new soundtrack gave me a new perspective on the movie as a whole. The transitions between scenes and even through time didn’t have the same significant feel as it normally did with the original soundtrack. The audience is meant to feel as though we have grown with Ella into her adulthood, but because the music didn’t signify any true meaningful change, the transition seemed bland and irrelevant.

  Additionally, there are a few scenes where the use of green screen is prominent and impeded on my enjoyment of the film. I hadn’t previously been affected by the harsh contrast with the use of green screen, but with my own soundtrack, I was already withdrawn from the movie because the music didn’t match up with anything happening, and was able to see and judge the editing of the scene.

There are also a few seconds of transitioning silence between the changing songs. I found that this silence was almost more powerful than having the music itself because it allowed me to focus all of my attention on the scenes at hand rather than being manipulated by the music. The soundtrack disrupted my interpretation of the film, and in complete silence, I was able to come up with my own understanding of the themes and whatever scene was taking place.

Lastly, the movie has a few scenes where there are musical numbers. I found that with the original score, the musical numbers didn’t seem so out of place, but with my own soundtrack, they were odd placements of song and dance (that didn’t match up at all with my music) which didn’t accomplish an effectual addition to the plot. With the original score, the song “Let Me Entertain You” from the Broadway musical Gypsy is used in the above scene in order to explain the elves’ desperation for the love of humans. My own soundtrack played “Blue Ramble”, which did nothing to enhance or further the plot.