Essential Elements of Poetry
Rethink things for a second time.
A seduction in capturing the real, the essence of time.
Animals – natural environment – exist within the environment. Live with in the now.
Humans – Have to thought out, held. Imagination is distant, far away.
Vertov Kino Eye
The mechanical eye. Looked at the world in a new way- use of camera.
An imaginative construct, like poetry but with visual language. Had rhythm, montage and intention.
Look at it’s construction of nature. Others (industrial) leave it to make belief so to enter the world.
Strip away techniques, framing, cameras, software etc. What is left?
- Unknown factor. Unexpected.
- Narrative – well constructed.
- BEING MADE TO LOOK AT SOMETHING IN OTHER WAYS TO WHAT YOU USUALLY LOOK AT SOMETHING.
Godard – Motion pictures were invented to look, tell, and study something.
Mimesis – Presentation where the creator is not considered.
Diegesis – Presentation where the creator addresses the audience.
1950’s onwards questioned the way of working moved to another direction.
1974 Bowery NY Rosler
Resembles a storyboard. Common route, revisited what isn’t considered in the regular routine.
Enforces drink, the affect it has on the area. Language of drunkenness in each society that it exists.
Includes text for each image. Related to animals inhabitants, words shifted to nouns that explain it, shifts to alcohol and words that are usually considered with it. Was seen as being cold. People capture left no trace except for the broken bottles. Slow shutter and way of life.
Made the viewer think they were looking at the real, unconstructed.
Rosler questions how the imagery is considered in a gallery. People captured aren’t seen in gallery, only reason they are there is because of the camera as they can’t escape it.
Making a film is like making a surrealist painting.
We recognize parts but it looks at the imaginary.
Considers the process created when using a camera.
Has a simple question at the beginning but the response is unknown allows for the film to wander off?!
To make a film you have to use the body to write what is seen. Shows the body but at the same time is not included, keeping a presence.
Includes a social scientist and Jean Rouch in the conversation. Rouch saw a point of view as something that could be pulled apart. Provokes the response of the people so to get what is seen. Only used one camera. Clearly constructed so to have the people meet rather than have it be finding a person at a time. It is shot as a conversation rather than a set point of view that fits the form of the documentary created.
Differences to a reality TV today.
A different reality is created, not based on anything serious. Focus on a set tone that is seen as being non-emotional and the film makers aren’t brought into it. Product placement and over voice used.
Reflective approach from the voice. Works with the images so to show the thoughts but doesn’t show the person speaking or any other people. Talks of how the film is constructed, you have to watch the film so to show the understanding of it’s creation which is openly spoken about.
How different are the two really though?
For the first clip, a simple question at the beginning but the response is unknown allows for the film to wander off?!
That way the documentation of peoples opinions is honest and not driven through a script like nowadays. Here a meeting between a group of people from different backgrounds is recorded for the purpose of publicity. The thoughts are wanted to be known when it comes to a subject that they have all been contacted about. However, how true is the documentation? As when the topic tends to drift and become silent then the director comes in bringing up past events such as how the woman feels on the topic from upset she had or how the coloured man feels about the subject based on his background. This shows that even though the characters are shown to have their own thoughts and speak freely they are in fact controlled with how the recording goes so to instigate the characters feelings more on the subject. In parts of which to actually create an uneasy feel making the video more interesting to view but turning it more into a sitcom at the same time.
The video documentation is also questioned on it’s set up when it comes to the pre-planning as the people are bought in based on their experience, not just a casual meeting. So it is not a case of the regular thoughts but more of we’ll have you chosen because of this or we’ll have you because of that. Taking the video into the reams of being created as the there and then thoughts of just asking someone’s opinion. The directors presence of which is also included from the people creating it being captured speaking and in the footage at times. Even more so as one of them is bought in as a character.
While in the second clip a scenario (all be in not serious) is created with a context that is probably not familiar to the characters other than in their story line is asked to work to the storyline through their acting ability so to express a thought bought together through a script. This does not hold the people from behind the scenes in it and class it more of a sitcom.
Yet what really is the difference between the two? The one set of characters lived it while the other set didn’t. The one set of characters express their opinions while the other set don’t… or do either set really express their opinions at any point or is it all controlled for the benefit of the mass media?
Peripheria Presente Film
Uses sound, effects are enforced so to help enforce what is seen, text is included to inform.
Has the sense of a story with the explanation of how it is made and the context surrounding it but is set between two languages English and French dependent of the speaker. This is also enforced with the use of archival images. Mainly though it creates a conversation between the subject and the film-maker.