The Camera Obscura

Ethan Jackson's camera obscura was an inviting exhibit. Since we saw the installation "in the works," it never-the-less was interactive and involving. The camera obscura, for a brief lesson in history, was constructed (in the Western world) during the Renaissance. I believe its most influential involvement was probably during the rise of the Dutch paintings of the 16th century, most notably Rembrandt and Vermeer. I am pretty sure everyone/Andrea is familiar with "Girl with the Pearl Earring." The author of the book (Tracy Chevalier), with the same name, addresses in great detail how the servant girl interacts with Vermeer in his art world, using the camera obscura to capture the image so he could get very detail painted onto the canvas.

It seems the most primitive camera has made a comeback. Mr Jackson invites people to see the exhibit, establishing the room (with retractable walls) as interior of the human eye. He had five lens situated along the wall, all parallel to each other. The images, from the outside, were inverted onto the wall inside. It reminded me of a quote by the painter Constantijn Huygens: It is impossible to express the beauty in words. The art of painting is dead, for this is life itself, or something higher, if we could find a word for it." This quote was dictated after he saw an image produced by a camera obscura. To him and the Renaissance, it represented life, a true reality away from the easel and pastels. Jackson seems to harken back to the Renaissance, adopting the principles of how the human eye sees and manifests images of the outside world into a dark room. Since we cannot look at our retinas, we can just walk on down to Kenneliworth and get a virtual reality of our world through our eye's point of view.

Projections, Projections, Projections

As the advent of spring break comes upon the weary, lack of sunlight film students, who spend more time in the basement of Mitchell, it is time to pause and reflect the mid-term thus far. The mid-term was not that bad, only I wish I studied the names of the artist a little closer, but hey, for the most part, I liked taking the test. Any test you can "rain man" through is a friend of mine.

Now, seeing that I should quit going on tangents and "follow orders," I found last Monday's screenings more tolerable and enjoyable. I actually found myself intrigued by the images flickering. Since the class focused on the projection machine as the artist, I felt its presence was telling me the story of the film through its loud "purring." Storm de Hirsch's THIRD EYE BUTTERFLY and LACES OF SUMMER were probably my favorite the entire day. LACES took an ordinary summer day, as she obsevred the changing tents and a red sail out her balcony. As you watch the images, you feel like Dorsky's philosophies of "heightening the act of seeing" are breathing down your neck. As the projection dictates the story, your eyes have no choice but to look at the images on the screen. It only takes the film expert to identify the sound of the projector, so they have no need to twist their neck to the back of the theatre to find the noisy equipment.

Now, THIRD EYE BUTTERFLY was interesing to watch just because of the angle I was seeing in. The double projectors were located just behind me, a couple of rows up. That day, I was sitting at an angle due to the recent injury I caused my ankle (no dumb jock references please. I have been twisting my ankle since 1996!!) Anyway, so I got the full experience of hearing the projector and taking in its presence through my left ear, while the sound of the speakers came into my right. It was a clash of sounds that de Hirsch probably strived for when making the film. The pyschedelic images captured the late 60s (along with the soundtrack), and since I am becoming a fan of installations more and more, I loved watching the different images that would pop onto the screen like a kaliedoscope. It was an enjoyment to have the projection tell me this story.

Finally, just another tagent. Between comtemplating about AVAILABLE LIGHTS projected box (it looked like the state of Wyoming at first, but then I concluded it was a movie about the changing seasons of Oregon, since the climate is completely different from West to East) and the camera obscura, I found NIGHT FALL only interesting for one purpose; my cell phone went off during the film. In the beginning of the film, the viewer is greeted with a loud bang as the image quickly flashes onto the screen (like a thunder and lightning storm). Anyway, as I was watching, my seat started to rumble. At first I thought, the sound is not that loud, but it is great if it can make my chair rumble. Little did I realize, it was my cell phone on vibrate going off. See, I got that invovled with the movie that I could not tell which way was up or down. Next time, the film should crank the volume, to make it feel as if the audience is in a thunder and lightning storm. How much fun would that be?!

For my comments on Marks, please refer to the Conceptual Studies Blog

csatuwm.blogspot.com

Granted, it is not about Monday's session, but it does cover, in detail, her lecture at the colloquia.

The Biggest Soviet Letdown

Its a controlled society where the government promises you things are going to get better. That the Soviet people are the best people. That they would be living in the sky, flying in sleek airplanes as the steel glistens from the sun rays. A place of milk and honey, where communism would unite the worker, turned out to be the biggest joke. Even in the eighties of Glasnot and Pereistoika, McDonald's could not save the degrading economy. In D'Est, a film made after fall of communism, is basically a film of waiting. Waiting for what though? Economic crisis plagued the former SovRus citizens, while former soviet nations slowly transitioned in democracy or erupted in civil war, things could only go up, right? You think, after being oppressed for years, that the people would be singing and doing cartwheels, that they would finally be technology advance with the Western world. Instead, they are left waiting. Akerman depicts a life that has not changed. People are still farming by hand, in carts that would be the biggest techonological advancement of the Medieval ages. Then again, serfdom in Russia was not banned until 1871! It seems that nothing improved since the fall. The best scenes, that provoked the most emotion for me, was the people just waiting. It seems that Stalin did not take any cues from Mussolini when it came to trains. People are standing outside, some in the cold, waiting for a train or mode of transportation that may never come. As they stare into the camera, it becomes symbolic. Where they better off in communistic times or will the better times be just around the bend? Despair plagues the people, and it still hold true today. The images are a testament, depicting on a how government can fail its people. Also, I must applaud Akerman for not showing the McDonaldization of the Russian city. People were still in cultural outfits and no one was found shouting something that would symbolically represent Western ideals. Russians were still living in tiny apartments, with little food and excess amounts of vodka. Akerman wanted to show depression, disillusionment, and time gone by, and she succeeded by illustrating to the viewer the real meaning of communism.

My favorite Russian Joke:
Old Man goes up to Stalin and says, "Comrade Stalin, I want to thank you for my childhood. They were the best years of my life."
Stalin looks at the man puzzled, responding, "Comrade, I was not General Secretary during your childhood."
The Old Man smiles and replies, "Yes. And that is why my childhood was the best time of life."
(after the joke, the old man mysteriously disappeared, never to be heard from again.)
If you do not get the joke, I highly suggest commenting me for further detail!

Day 5

In order to meet the quota, I am blogging twice in one day. Once again, no internet at home and I avoid this campus on the weekends. Anyway, I must say, I am quite excited for the upcoming film on Monday. If there is one thing I brag about is my in-depth knowledge of Soviet history. I am a scholar on the history and concepts of communism, and its fallout still effects Russian culture and the former Soviet countries. For example, many of the older generations want to return to the Stalinist 30s. Surprising they survived the purges, the eldery feel as if Putin and his government is more fearful. Also, the decay of socialist city landscaping is a must. Seriously, just take a look at Moscow and how the city did not succeed in establishing a socialist city from an already existing medieval concentric cirlce, but it did create the most ostentatious subway system ever! Just look up The Cathedral of Jesus Christ the Saviour and you will understand my point. Outside Russia, the fallout has taken its toll. The former Yugoslavia countries erupted in civil war and are the most economically low societies in Europe. Ukraine and Chernobyl. The Aral Sea. TurkSib. All failures!! I hope this movie captures the downfall very, very in depth and its effect on the citizens who suffered.

Day 4

So, the Oscars are next week, and here is my little rant on the upcoming ceremonies.
Best Supporting Actress: I am really hoping for an underdog to win this year. The hype on Jennifer Hudson makes me want to believe that someone from the Babel cast will take the wind out of her sails. In fact, she better hope she loses because, think about, she will win and thus her career will somewhat disappear. Clive Davis can only use her as arm candy for so long; case in point, Whitney Huston. OH HELL TO THE NO!
Best Supporting Actor: This is a catagory I could careless about. I bet Eddie Murphy will win despite that horrible movie he has in theaters right now. I wish Markie Mark would take it. I just loved his performance in THE DEPARTED. He is so underrated that Hollywood will not give him his dues since his rap career went downhill. The role for him was so close to home for him that it felt he was not acting. His acidic tongue and dialogue is enough for me to buy the movie.
Best Actor. No argument about Whitaker's performance in THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND. I have not even seen the movie, but the first time I watched the trailer, he sent chills down my spine. Within two seconds, I knew he was going to win the Oscar.
Best Actress: No contest again, it will probably go to Helen Mirren. The Queen is a great film, but Penelope Cruz usually does outstanding when she is teamed with Pedro. I say it will be between those two, but Mirren will probably win. After all, her career is based on playing the English monarchy.
Best Movie: Out of the three I have seen, I would say Babel. It is the most political, thought-provoking peace about geography. I enjoyed it, but my runner up would be Letters of Iwo Jima. I have not seen it, but the academy loves Clint, so you never know.
Best Director: It is Marty time to take home the trophy. Even though THE DEPARTED is not as great as the movies he was robbed from in seventies (TAXI DRIVER and RAGING BULL), the Irish MEAN STREETS is enough for him to walk away with it. He forte is gangster movies, which culivates a massive following (I myself am a disciple of Scorsese) I mean, at the rate he is going, his career will be like Altman or O'Toole, the artist getting the honorary Oscar, never winning the actual one. Also, his editor is fantastic and she will win again for sure!

Day 3

I really forgot the assignment over the lecture on Wednesday, but I will give it my best. It seems that the video diaries that were the most bizarre really stood out for the class. I guess it was hard for people to see through the optical surface on the surface. The piece of paper in my hand questions the use of certain techinques in order to grasp the film's essence. For example, the DATA DIARIES seemed to be difficult to watch; after all, it was just an illustration of what a computer does on a daily basis. I find it quite poetic to be honest. The sounds and scrambled colors are just a language, a binary code based on 1's and 0's for the basic computer function. It is something that people normally do not see. In a way, it is relateable to science. Human beings and other solid structure are really just a series of microscopic atoms that compose our solid matter. We tend to forget that the human body is a pixelation of science in regards to that aspect.

Another momemt to ponder is the aspect of dreams for most of the films viewed on Monday. It seems that the diaries are taken from dreams or actual accounts. What makes a diary to be perceived as a dream? If it is a diary, then it usually logs the daily occurrences of one's life. A dream is another state of mind, full of wishes and fantasies, or in my case, glimpses into the future. GENTLY DOWN THE STREAM somehow broadcasts itself to the viewer as a dream, but I find it a diary for Su and how she personally deals with being a gay person in America. She lets the viewer see her vulnerability by using shaky words or re-printed film, images that are not stable most kinetic like the tide. Su is testing our cultural perception, saying that nothing is uniform like a classic hollywood fairy tale. All experimental film seem to denounce the stereotypical cinematic structure, using the avant-garde media as a way to communicate a dream-like statement.

Now for something completely different.....
I am starting two unions. First one is film students against smoking. Look, I know this is probably the most stressful degree paths, but you are never going to make it big if you slowly kill yourself with cigarettes! Run off the stress and eat some food. Stay healthy, do not have a premature death!
Second, I want to put an into this whole "Mc" (insert sexist feature) phrase from the English lexicon. The mind-numbing Grey's Anatomy has put this stupid word into our world and thus it has been overused and is really the most idiotic naming system ever. It is driving me nuts and has to end!