From: Roger Beebe (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Oct 18 2005 - 08:50:31 PDT
On Oct 18, 2005, at 11:31 AM, James Kreul wrote:
>
>> And to James, it was well put when you said some think there is no
>> need for
>> "such slick formal work"--though you disagree.
>>
>
> Just to follow up on that in relation to the ideology question that
> popped
> up elsewhere: I think the ideological arguments for more formal
> work can
> seem somewhat simplistic and are often dismissed as modernist. But
> given
> the dominance of images in the information age, it seems to me that
> foregrounding the elements of image making is not without political
> utility,
> even after years of formal filmmaking. Some cliches within
> experimental
> film worlds still throw general audiences for a loop. And perhaps
> more
> importantly, thinking about the image through the activity of more
> formal
> filmmaking (not just watching films) also remains potentially
> significant.
> Certainly it is not the only thing that needs to be done with
> imagery, and
> perhaps it is not even near the top of a list of priorities,
> politically
> speaking. Apparently, this is not a motivation for Tscherkassky.
> But it
> could be a motivation for programming it or using it in a class.
>
Some days I'm inclined to agree with what Jim said. In fact, most
days I am. But as this thread progressed, I began thinking about the
gee-whiz factor in the Tscherkassky, and I started questioning what
the difference is between that and the gee-whiz factor of films like
The Matrix, Terminator 2, or Jurassic Park. Sure, we in the know
recognize that the effects in Tscherkassky weren't made by million-
dollar computers, but does the "general audience" (cited by Jim above
as a potential target for the formal work of Tscherkassky) recognize
this? Is that central to their experience of his films? Perhaps
this is precisely the shortcoming of the "precision" or "lack of
messiness" that I think Jim identified earlier in this thread as the
distinguishing characteristics of his work.
I actually still really enjoy the Tscherkassky films, but I'm not
ashamed to say that I also really like The Matrix. (I don't want to
MAKE the Matrix though. I'd be much more inclined to work alone in a
darkroom & even process the film solo as Tscherkassky does than to
work with a crew of thousands to get to the gee-whiz.)
Some thoughts.
Roger
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.