From: James Kreul (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Oct 18 2005 - 13:15:40 PDT
> Some days I'm inclined to agree with what Jim said. In fact, most
> days I am.
Should I have waited a day? Or posted earlier? But seriously...
>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?
I think there is a growing curiosity about production practices in general,
as evidenced by the popularity of DVD extras and so forth. To a degree, I
think that applies to general audiences for experimental film (forgive the
phrase and generality). I recently showed McLaren's Begone Dull Care to a
class without much of an introduction, then explained the technique
afterwards. Several students unfamiliar with that kind of work suggested
that they would have liked to have known the technique first. I still would
show the work first, but the reaction does suggest that some audiences faced
with a lack of narrative do try to fill that void with an understanding of
technique. In fact I would guess (a pure guess) that they would be more
likely to think about technique before trying to think about graphic
relationships and structure.
The questions become: Can the gee-whiz factor serve any function besides
visual pleasure? (maybe I shouldn't use that loaded term) Does it have to
serve an additional function? Are "gee-whiz" and "oppositional" mutually
exclusive terms? Have we learned any lessons from films that systematically
removed gee-whiz? Can gee-whiz be used as part of a bait-and-switch?
>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 think the "lack of messiness" is an issue not likely to be raised by
general audiences, and is pretty specific to the experimental film
community. Assuming we agree that there is this sense of precision in
Tscherkassky (I haven't heard otherwise in this thread), I think that
quality becomes salient only when talking about the kinds of issues that
we're talking about in this thread. And if it is not a salient property to
a general audience, then it is not going to be seen as a shortcoming.
> I actually still really enjoy the Tscherkassky films, but I'm not
> ashamed to say that I also really like The Matrix.
The only shame would be liking the sequels more than the original.
James Kreul
UNC-Wilmington
email suppressed
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.