After viewing this film, I was left with a sense of, "What was that?" I understood that Sharon Lockhart wanted to capture the essence of movement through a series of warm-ups performed by a girls basketball team. But I was still left with a couple questions in my head.
Why does Sharon maintain a single position with the camera? And why did she choose to shoot a basketball team in a foreign country?
I believe that when Sharon decided to maintain a single position with the camera, it was to try to move the viewer's attention on to the players themselves and their movements, instead of focusing on the movement of the camera. In addition, by using a basketball team from a foreign country, words and appearances become dulled, while the actual movements performed become instense and in focus. The art then becomes the dance that the player's perform (through their warm-ups and tricks).
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Hamilton : Just Another Story
After viewing Hamilton, I tried to comprehend why I felt a little anxiety while watching this film. I guess what bothered me was that lack of drama in the film. Being that it was a narrative film, I expected more to happen, and also to see it follow the classic narrative film syntax of introducing a protagonist and antagonist, then a build up, and then climax.
Since this was not the case, I feel it left me wanting more. It seemed to be a drawn out story line that didn't have much to it.
This left me to look at the film in a deeper sense. Why did it not follow the normal syntax of narrative film? Was there a point that Porterfield was trying to make about not including such dramatic events?
Then I reviewed an enlightening quote from Bresson, "From the beings and things of nature, washed clean of all art and especially of the art of drama, you will make an art." It seemed to make perfect sense with all of this. Because of the lack of drama and "artistic will" by Porterfield, the viewer is left to create the art in their own mind. I believe that this is a great idea in experimental film. Playing out a normal life in front of the camera without any tricks from the artist's point of view, the audience can dive into the film from a personal approach, and see the beauty and art of life for what it is.
Since this was not the case, I feel it left me wanting more. It seemed to be a drawn out story line that didn't have much to it.
This left me to look at the film in a deeper sense. Why did it not follow the normal syntax of narrative film? Was there a point that Porterfield was trying to make about not including such dramatic events?
Then I reviewed an enlightening quote from Bresson, "From the beings and things of nature, washed clean of all art and especially of the art of drama, you will make an art." It seemed to make perfect sense with all of this. Because of the lack of drama and "artistic will" by Porterfield, the viewer is left to create the art in their own mind. I believe that this is a great idea in experimental film. Playing out a normal life in front of the camera without any tricks from the artist's point of view, the audience can dive into the film from a personal approach, and see the beauty and art of life for what it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
