From: eric fleischauer (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Oct 16 2005 - 11:48:58 PDT
Some people have touched on the issue about the
technical aspect of Tscherkassky's films, but i think
they have been understated. there is always a balance
between form and content when interpreting a film,
people weigh these aspects differently. when i watch
Tscherkassky's films i can't help but think that it is
the form which drives the films.
the fact that people might view his work as "too
flashy" shows how we have become desensitized to the
complexity involved in certain processes of image
making. video can emulate film and create images and
effects only possible via computer 'processors'.
today, when something very complex and
'process'-driven is made w/o this technology it takes
on new meaning.
creating the amazing imagry of his work by hand (i.e.
without computers) Tscherkassky is someone who is very
interested in exploring and experimenting with the
mostly deserted world of FILM techniques. watching
his films presents the viewer with a puzzle: "how did
he do that?!". The use of older, recognizable films
directs the viewer to start thinking in terms of film
manipulation, not video. (as an austrian filmmaker
why do you think Tscherkassky chooses to use
american-made films? is it b.c. they are more widly
recognizable and easier to scramble their intended
meaning) to me, the meaning derived from this footage
is secondary to the afformentioned process oriented
issues.
one last note,...in "instructions for a light and
sound machine" there seemed to be a more clearly
recognizable narrative structure. mayeb this is a
result of discussions similar to this one.
eric
--- jennifer fieber <email suppressed>
wrote:
> I realize from a IMDB search that Peter T. has many
> more films than I would
> have guessed. I didn't realize he started in the
> 80s. So I am only
> concerning myself with Outer Space and the last one
> with The Good, The Bad
> and the Ugly footage (Is it Dreamwork?).
>
> 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. 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. (As bad as it may be, I really want to see
> that Jodie Foster film
> Flightplan for the same reasons.)
>
> His other film Dreamworks, I had less tolerance for
> because 1) he's doing it
> again, and 2) the sergio leone is even more
> recognizable. Gee, perhaps it
> looks so good because of Leone, the Cinematographer,
> the lighting crew and
> the budget of the film?
>
> But I don't think it's just a case, of "the book was
> better." These film
> experiments strike me as, dare I say, bourgoise? I
> realize he has put a lot
> of hands-on technical work into the films which
> should count for something--
> I hope he does not pay assistants to do the work for
> him--but there is
> something too easy about it. As my friend said, "If
> someone from Hollywood
> sees these, he's going to make a million bucks."
>
> 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". I'm not
> saying all films have to
> have "substance" to be good. Kurt Kren made films
> that were simple, visual
> but poignant. I have never felt his films lacked
> something. Luther Price
> uses found footage, but he's got something to say
> with it.
>
> I've taken a 2 year break from filmwork or watching,
> but want to get back
> into it. But I've got some questions to work out,
> hence all the posting. I
> miss the critical discussions back in art school,
> and I hope Frameworks can
> substitute something, because I find most
> post-screening discussions in NY
> are either intensely vicious out of petty
> competition or else lacking
> critical bravery, because so many people are
> friends.
>
> Cheers!
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.