E-Flux-Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium

E-flux
The article regarding the circulation of poor images brings up a lot of interesting points. Media as a collective whole is being distributed as sometimes, poorer versions of their former selves. It’s true, The YouTube videos, and cell phone speaker quality mp3s circling the web are, often atrocious, but where else can you instantly see videos like the ones we saw in class like Annie Oakley practicing her marksmanship, or the trip to the moon without driving to Facets to rent some sort of compilation tape that would have it on there? I gladly would sacrifice sound and image quality for instantaneous access. Furthermore, there are perfect copies of films and music readily available on the internet; you just have to know where to find it. Using peer to peer sharing methods, I’ve downloaded literally hundreds of thousands of songs, and not once have I noticed a difference in quality. The same applies to movies and television shows.
One small gripe I had with the article concerned a speaker who refused to show a film because there was no proper film projector available. The type of person who regards “Art” as something that is so sacred, that it should not be even shown outside of its original format is, in my opinion, missing the point of what art should be. Art is something that should be viewed, and shared, and enjoy by all, no matter what the case. I know a photograph of Michelangelo’s pieta by no means would compare to actually seeing the statue in person, but being able to see that photograph, I can still be amazed and captivated by its beauty.
Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium
Video art, in its essence should create something that, although utilizes the same conventions of creating a film, should be something completely different. Taking a class at Columbia last semester, gave me a new insight into a medium which I did not consider to be art. Watching videos like Stan Brakhage’s Existence is Song in which he actually painted over film cells, was very interesting to me, but it wasn’t until I created some abstract video art of my own that I really began to understand the challenges and motivations behind what goes into creating video art. Not saying that what I created was great art, but in trying to do something truly unique and different, I got a better understanding to what it was about. For the piece I created, I took a bag of used motor oil and combined it with dish detergent and placed it over a sheet of glass, which I then aimed over a light source with the camera. This created an interesting effect which wasn’t something you typically see. By doing, I had a new appreciation for video art that I did not have when simply viewing it for the first time.

Team Up

Ashley and kris group DOWN

Left

Motion from Left to Right - September 27, 2010

Brian/Logan Every Which Way

Montage continues to be one of those terms I think I understand until I dig a little deeper. Einstein’s view on montage has proved this point exactly; his view on the subject confirms the meaning is confusing to some, and maybe should be left to the readers or viewers interpretation.
However, I would like to understand montage somewhere in between the two definitions given in the reading, a sequence of shots that suggest an idea to the viewers while also utilizing visual, verbal and musical aspects to create a deeper meaning.
Something that was clearly explained though was the difference or definitions between semiotic and semantics. The need for semantics to create a semiotic kind of meaning. Their reference to what a word is to a sentence made total sense and was easy to understand.
Another idea i found to be interesting from the reading is the though of different people only grasping certain aspect of a film according to the their background or how each person specifically would interpret different things.
It makes me want to go back and see every movie i have ever seen with this though in mind, maybe with more awareness, i want to know if there is anything else the director wanted me to comprehend that i actually didn't.

1st Assignment - Shots and Montage

Yuri Lotman tells us about shots in cinema to be like the idea of language. We interpret meaning based on sequence/shots of events from what we know of outside settings. To create film criticism, we can't exactly talk about every single aspect of a shot we see in these films, so we "skim off" some parts from film for a better analysis. As I was reading his solution, I can't help but interpret it as that we criticize film based on a standard formula to determine what is "good and bad" film. If it doesn't follow the formula we set like, "exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution" then it can be considered terrible in terms of narrative structure. He raises the point that there's no such thing as an accidental or bad film because of the ability to derive meaning from it still. It was pounded into my head from earlier school days that they must follow such a formula. I had the longest time understanding this simple construct as I was reading these ideas of what is "good and bad" art.

In the theory of montage, I've also always believed montage to be combination of ideas/concepts to create meaning from chained together. Never thought about montage considered as a central element of film and media. Montage as a conflicting collision of social/political ideas does make the most sense in terms of what arouses emotions the most. The idea we have to question our sense of reality within the perspective of the film is a powerful one. Our ideas of social decency is put to the test and is explored thoroughly as to the point with the Rashomontage example. I've never seen the film but from what the basis is described to be, there's a certain sense of arbitrary notations that can be taken into to judge our own sense of reality. Do we blame the woman for being promiscuous or the victim of rape? Was she really attacked? Do we believe there's a shaman or magical force at work here? Did the bandit and woman think of this plan together against the samurai?

Reading Assignment 1 - Suresh Soundararajan

Yori Lotman explains that everything in film has meaning.  Based upon the viewer's life experiences and predisposition, he or she derives meaning out of a film.  This description brings to mind the varied messages that my girlfriend and I take away from movies we have viewed together.   For example, in the movie Ironman, I saw it is a vilification in several scenes of Muslims and the glorification of the military industrial complex.  Her interpretation of the same movie was that it was a thrill ride and the special effects were admirable.  I have a strong interest in geopolitics which has been a powerful influence and how I analyze a movie.  As Lotman describes, we have both "skimmed off" the various layers of meaning based upon having "various degrees of preparation".

The analysis of  Roshomon, and more generally post-modernity, brings to mind the metaphysical belief systems of Hinduism and Buddhism.   As human beings, we are limited by our perception and five senses from grasping the true nature of reality.  As in Roshmon, the viewer is left questioning what is real and what is not.  Although the west has began fully exploring this concept in recent times, these ideas have been flourishing in the east for thousands of years, from a time that could almost be called pre-religion.  We may see our own lives as a linear montage but the ancients would argue that linear time and events from our past are mere illusions.

Montage - Tommy Kaltsas

Montage is made up of events that happen in sequence and helps to mold semiotics in film. Along with facial gestures the story is also important. Also many people who watch a movie will see something different and get a different feel of the events that occurred. Using the example in this weeks text is the Movie Rashomon. It has many conflicting story points about how a samurai warrior died.

Everyone involved including the person who died said they were the one to kill the samurai off. The only piece of information as stated by the text is you only know that the woman in the story was raped by the bandit. Therefore most people would assume that the bandit would have been the person who killed off the husband. However one should not make assumptions due to the fact that all three people involved were the cause.

Montage can also be used as a time skip in a movie or game or also be used for flashbacks to describe what events have happened in the movies equivalent past that have lead up to the present. In some movie series a sequal will take place in a setting years after the events in the movies before. A prime example of this would be Toy Story 3 where Andy who was only ten or eleven in the first two movies. In the third he is seventeen and has given most of his toys away. That has explained why the initial cast had become so few with characters from the other movies being mentioned as sold in this one. Montage is a way to refer to specific events and bring chain them together. In the end we all see things differently. Many people thought of Toy Story 3 a sad movie for me it was definitely the most serious of Three but had a sweet ending about new beginnings. As is the world of semiotics everything and everything is open to at least some interpretation.

Reading Response by Rob DiChristofano

I may be one of the few, but I tend to view movies as pure entertainment. As such it's not until after the ending or a second viewing that I'm able to begin analyzing and thinking about the movie critically. Shots and direction are important in movies, however there are many more films which small details aren't nearly as important as the focus of the scene.

As an example -- recently I've watched the Transporter trilogy. These films are textbook action movies and what the director wants the viewer to see, they see. Whether it's from editing or film techniques there isn't a whole lot of higher thinking or impressive overlay. I wouldn't say there weren't conscious decisions made while creating the movie -- for instance, that the main character Jason Statham, always wears a simple black and white suit for jobs, says something about his character that doesn't need to be described verbatim. When you compare that to the 'such-and-such' crew he busts up relatively quickly, all that the viewer needs to know is that they are wearing very similar clothing, suggesting they are some sort of gang or order.

"Nothing in a work is accidental" is a wise phrase, even with such a simple movie, most of the scene serves to give background to a character. Statham's character drives a BMW (I forget the exact model), but aside from being referenced by a police inspector all it serves as is an extension of his character. Immaculate and precise, which frankly, could be served by probably a hundred other cars. However aside from character design, there is no deeper meaning in the film to be found. It is simply one to be enjoyed for what it is, a slightly over-the-top action movie. Some critics argue that this film should be acknowledged as "junk" so that the viewer can enjoy it, in this case there is no "skimming" of meaning, as described by Lotman. This is the type of movie that a viewer will not get much more out of the second viewing, aside from being entertained. These types of work strengthen my own opinion about films which have more to offer and get me thinking critically.

Reading Assignment1- Ashley Egan

It's interesting to think that 'the shot is the basic unit of measurement' (Lotman 83) in the cinematic industry. He also states that when it is broken down into shots, there is the possibility to emphasize any sort of detail. A series of shots could show a great amount of detail for the audiences benefit, or the shots could be quick and blurry to take the attention off the detailing. The way something is shot determines how the audience is supposed to feel, or think.

Another notion he brought up was the concept having an elite culture. I feel this can go for both children and adults. In the article, he stated that children skim off things in the movies and television they don't understand and pay attention to what they do know. As for the adults, I feel when they watch something childish, they realize there's some intertextual relations, which allows them to find it amusing.

Also the idea that Eisenstein had about film makers and the way they shape their film. He stated that their social backgrounds have a lot to do with how they shoot their film and I think that is very important. Having different social background allow you to think or look at certain things a different way than someone else. Having these unique backgrounds allowed us to see the various genres and perceptions of the film makers.

Montage - Becca Christensen

It's interesting to think of Montage in Cinema and how we, as humans, perceive things. I think the most important point of this is that we all see things differently, simply based on our experiences and make up. There were several lines of text that solidified these points for me.




"Six people standing in a circle around a stature see the statue, but not the whole statue, only what they can see from where they are standing." I believe this point to be true not only when studying semiotics in cinema, but in all works of art and subject matter. Each person is built differently, has different cultural and education backgrounds, and as a result we all perceive the world in different ways. It's a very interesting concept that can be explored at length.




"It behaves as a kind of living organism which had a feedback channel to the reader and thereby instructs him." I like the idea of "living organism". Essentially, all art is living and constantly changing. While a peice of art from the 17th century may carry the same meaning as intended in that time, hundreds of years later the meaning may have changed or altered. Not because the piece of art changed, but because our ideas and perceptions have changed based on society and education. As our society evolves, so does a static piece of artwork. This thought is amazing to me, and also very hopeful.

Montage-Jonathan Zmek

For cinema, the subject of montage is something that is easily understood by the common moviegoer. In most cases it is simply a series of short shots typically ten to twenty seconds, which conveys to the viewer a sense of accomplishment within a short period of time. This is done in a very simple way when we for example have a scene of a boxer training for a fight, like as in Rocky. We see him working out in the gym, then lifting weights, then running, then working out again, then lifting weights, then the iconic scene of him raising his hands reaching the top of the stairs. I’m not sure if this is the exact order since I haven’t seen it in some time, but this is the basic idea. This is the most obvious, simple, and widely used way of showing a passage of time in which the beginner becomes a pro within a couple of minutes.
I like the idea that Einstein proposes that cinematography is montage. I never gave it much thought, but a film as a whole essentially is a montage. The film in whatever length it is, (unless it falls into the dogme 95 category, in which case I don’t believe it could be described as montage,) is just a series of short, scenes strung together to form an overall narrative lasting typically around one and a half to two hours.
Another thing I never really thought of was the idea that Rashomon could be considered a montage. It’s true that you have the four different accounts, which play into each other from each characters point of view, but when you think of it as a montage, I suppose it makes sense. There is a progression of the story when we view each person’s perspective, but after each one we each have try to make sense of it all in our own way.
I myself have seen it several times, and to me the most credible story would be that of Takashi Shimura, the woodcutter. He really has nothing to gain from the situation. He just happened by this scene as it was happening. Whereas the woman was raped and her husband murdered, the man had his life taken and his wife violated, Toshiro Mifune, the bandit committed two crimes and was trying to defend himself.

Test Post

test post!!!!