From: Nathan Andersen (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Oct 07 2005 - 13:33:37 PDT
I wonder about both reactions (included below) to this film. Does it
have to be either critique or endorsement? What about taking an
unavoidable feature of the American (and global) landscape and calling
attention to its "variety in sameness" without judgment? Some viewers
will find that comforting, others disgusting. Or: an ironically
condensed account of any and every roadtrip across the United States
that plays with the conventions of the roadtrip genre as much as it
playfully calls attention (in a kind of parody of Duchamp or Warhol) to
formal properties of an ubiquitous set of symbols? I haven't given it
much thought, but while I laughed when I saw the film I didn't take
either mockery or endorsement to be the among the dominant functions of
the work. Those would be, I think, secondary responses that betray
more about the person watching it than about the work.
Nate Andersen
> curiously, i saw this film this past week. it and several other by
> Roger Beebe. of this film i had mixed reaction, pegged by something
> mumbled by a person sitting near me; "how is this not a mcdonald's
> commercial?" Roger seemed to feel that the film was funny and that
> somehow it was his revenge on Micky D's but i found nothing much to
> support that. i also didnt get any humor effect from it. perhaps there
> was something to the soundtrack which made the criticality of this
> work obvious, but i didnt catch that either.
>> I love Composition in Red and Yellow. I think the
>> way Roger edited the film was meant mock McDonalds
>> and I think it really comes across that way to the
>> audience well at least the audience in Washington,
>> DC. You should see it again.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.