From: Fred Camper (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jan 11 2004 - 16:19:15 PST
Alexander Soifer wrote:
>
> I would call a film "perfect" if I value it and wish nothing to change.
Sure, but I've seen documentaries which I "value" for the information
that they contain and which don't seem to have any flaws, but which
aren't very interesting as films. This makes "perfect" by your
definition not a very useful category for me. I suspect you think "The
Color of Pomegrantaes" is also a great film, as many do, but your
definition really can be applied to a film that has some modest value
and no obvious flaws.
I'd much rather have a film that's aesthetically great and that changes
the way I see, even if there are some obvious mistakes in it, even flaws
that should have been changed. Example? There's a recognizable shot of
trees in Brakhage's "The Text of Light," a rarity in that film, that has
never completely worked for me. It's a few seconds in 70 minutes, and
it's interesting in that it sets the other shots off in a certain way,
and also in the way it shows one of Brakhage's aspirations for the film.
But it's not "perfect" the way the rest of the film seems to be. In
fact, it's messy. And there's something to be said for messes too.
Fred Camper
Chicago
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.