From: db (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Feb 10 2007 - 21:28:36 PST
On Feb 10, 2007, at 6:31 PM, Cari Machet wrote:
> i thought 'begotten' was way way way too long
> i did like that it was shot on the playschool cam - or was that
> fisher price
> and it had beautiful imagery
> how were u effected physically?
> did you see 'repulsion' or "the act of seeing with one's own eyes"
First saw Repulsion on a first date. Bad choice.
I've not yet worked up the nerve to see TAOSWOOE, based mostly on a
photo of Stan outside the Autopsy room. I haven't quite figured out
my reticence. There is my fear of sharp objects against skin
instilled by an educational film I saw in the 3rd or 4th grade.
The film affected me physically on many levels, some quite surprising
to me. There was the sheer physicality of the film--the scratches,
"horrible" exposures, the dancing grain (definitely not pixelvision)--
that abstracted the imagery to a degree that sound had a huge
influence on my sense of discomfort. A good deal of the movement and
partnering of "characters" had the intensity of some of my favorite
butoh artists. Best of all, though, was the feeling that,
archetypical as the elements or structure of the film might have
been, I had no idea where it was going to take me.
On Feb 10, 2007, at 8:11 PM, Sam Wells wrote:
> Begotten would seem to me to - in fantasy - represent something
> more like the emerging of (self) conciousness caught in the ravages
> of violent conflict.... like two halves of the brain fighting in
> Agamemnon's head amidst an external war...
This is a wonderful description of the film. That boring binary of
opposites, completely undermined by the emerging unknown.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.