From: James Kreul (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Oct 15 2005 - 22:47:34 PDT
> Too flashy? Yep. And damn seductive. But don't you think the power of the
> pieces comes mostly from the original material? I saw Outer space, was
> dazzled by it's scale and because cameraless filmwork is something I'm also
> interested in. I then got to see the film it comes from, The Entity, which
> is pretty mind-blowing. Saw Outer SPace 2 more times projected and found it
> pretty shallow this time. Any creepiness that comes across in the editing
> was already there in the original, but better. The darkness too. He really
> hasn't added much to it except for fucking with the soundtrack.
I assume that the material breakdown of the image is not in the original. I
think what works for me is the breakdown of the image and I guess I'm less
interested in whether the film "adds" something to the original narrative
context. I'm not convinced whether that would be an effective way to
evaluate the film. Dream Work also uses Entity footage (I'm not sure which
one the Leone one is, I don't think I've seen it.) I think Dream Work is
less rigorous about how the image moves back and forth between
representational imagery and abstraction. Dream Work doesn't have the same
sense of insistent rhythms on the image and sound track, and so it didn't
have the same immediate impact on me.
> And with
> no context Barbara Hershey now is the typical helpless female of
> horrorfilms. The original was interesting because by the end you were
> unsure if any of it happened, if she was crazy, lying or if their was a
> coverup.
I don't doubt that the narrative of The Entity is more complex. But I don't
think the structure organizing the sounds and images in Outer Space is a
narrative structure, let alone a very complicated narrative structure. It
seems to have a much more simple pattern of repetition and variation leading
into the eventual first breakdown of the image, a regroup, and another
breakdown. The parallel between the violence in the original and the
violence to the image and sound track, while not particularly complex, does
account for some of the visceral impact of the film.
> Perhaps someone else can explain why it gets under my skin, I'm struggling
> with the answer myself. It's shaken me up a bit asking myself if when I use
> found footage it might not be "cheating".
Well, one good thing that came out of the recent thread is that different
people have very different assumptions about what "doing something" with
found imagery means in the first place. With more recognizable footage,
when people know the original film, there may be more obstacles to
organizing the sounds and images on abstract principles because memories of
the original narrative will dominate responses. Other frustrations are
linked to Konrad's great "use/mention" discussion several posts ago. While
I do think found footage can be "easy" (some found footage techniques have
indeed been absorbed into the mainstream, just watch the Daily Show), I also
think that not all types of manipulation are immediately apparent, and not
all of meanings associated with those techniques are easily accessible.
In general, I think most audiences think about images in relation to
narrative rather than abstract/graphic principles. This is why it is hard
to teach something as relatively simple as a graphic match in editing (even
in a narrative film) to film students. I think most of my students would
react to Outer Space in terms of the narrative thread, and would react
negatively to it because of that (it's lacking as a narrative).
But I think most of the "slickness" criticisms I've heard are from people
who do understand abstract/graphic form. And I think the question for many
is whether there is really a need for such slick formal work at this point.
I would answer yes, others would answer no. (This often comes up in relation
to debates about Views From the Avant Garde over the past few years, you can
check the archives if you're interested.)
James Kreul
UNC-Wilmington
email suppressed
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.