I've always been annoyed when people make snarky comments while watching films that are slightly out of the ordinary. It is a pet peeve, and I hear it much more often than I should be able to stand. I've never questioned, however, the reason why people feel the need to complain about a film that seems strange and unconventional. In his article, "Introduction to 'Avant-Garde Film,'" Scott MacDonald explains why many people feel uncomfortable in the presence of unconventional films.
Most people, when they see a movie, go to see cinema - they want a show, not a film. So the majority of mainstream movies follow certain structures to pander to that desire. And every movie is neatly packed into a particular genre and sent out to marketing experts to be formatted for advertising. The whole process is very commercial. Because of this, most people have ideas in their heads of what a given movie will be like before it is seen. It is no surprise, then, that people don't know how to react when they see a film that is 'avant-garde.' But it isn't as if 'avant-garde' filmmakers are unaware of this problem. They know that many of their viewers will have a difficult time watching experimental films. Consequently, many 'avant-garde' filmmakers take into account how they think their viewers will react when they are constructing a film. For example, a very long take in a film is probably not just an arbitrary long take. Instead it is likely that the filmmaker chose to use a long take to allow the viewer to concentrate on a given image.
MacDonald's article helped me realize that making a film is more than just assembling images and sound to create a story or an environment. The filmmaker must also keep in mind the context in which his or her viewers are seeing the film. And that context is a cinematic environment wherein most movies are tailored to a certain mainstream structure.
Friday, December 5, 2008
On the Video Hardware and Software.
I did not have any problems with the digital camera. The only criticism I have is that the video quality was not great, but given the nature of these drifts, that was expected. The camera was easy to use, and it was certainly small enough. I have used a Sony digital video camera in the past, and normally I would prefer using that. For this project, however, I liked using a smaller, less conspicuous camera. In an ideal world, the digital camera would not require the use of any batteries.
To edit my video content, I used two programs: Quicktime Pro and Magix Movie Edit Pro 10. I used Quicktime to edit most of my rough cuts because I wanted to use a new program, and also because I didn't want to incorporate any fancy editing. For the final cut, however, I wanted to be able to edit with dissolves and incorporate sound more easily. So I used a program that I was already familiar with. I still wanted the video to feel natural, so I shyed away from all the available crazy effects. I will definitely continue to use MME Pro 10 in the future.
To edit my video content, I used two programs: Quicktime Pro and Magix Movie Edit Pro 10. I used Quicktime to edit most of my rough cuts because I wanted to use a new program, and also because I didn't want to incorporate any fancy editing. For the final cut, however, I wanted to be able to edit with dissolves and incorporate sound more easily. So I used a program that I was already familiar with. I still wanted the video to feel natural, so I shyed away from all the available crazy effects. I will definitely continue to use MME Pro 10 in the future.
Second Reading Response.
John Cage, in his article, "The Future of Music: Credo," had a brilliant vision of what's to come in the evolution of music. I took particular interest in the article because I found it fascinating to see Cage's 1937 prediction of the future of music. Has this vision come true? I couldn't say (after all, there's still a future ahead of us). But before I try to analyze Cage's prediction, it would be helpful to know what he said.
First, Cage points out that people are constantly taking an interest in the sounds that they hear. In fact, he seems to be saying that we can't help it - we are bothered when we cannot hear something. His main point, then, is that music will continue to incorporate new and interesting sounds until the point where musicians will utilize every possible tone. Generally, in producing music, a musician will write a combination of notes, and each note will have a specific tone, according to a specific scale. So there are a finite number of notes to choose from. This idea is much like the diagram of an atom - the electrons in their energy levels being analogous to notes in music. The electrons must stay on one of the designated paths in an atom - they cannot rest in between one of those paths. Similarly, musical notes must fall on a very specific frequency... Or so it was thought. But Cage argues that musical notes and tones can and will explore the space between the normal frequencies. And he says that musicians will begin to use electronic instruments to do this. Cage says that the fundamental idea of tones will differ greatly in future, but we will still look to the past to gather our ideas about form and structure.
As a musician, I think that many of the predictions that John Cage made in 1937 have come true. Music is evolving. But I question the effect that new forms of music are having on people. The most evolved forms of music (that is, the forms of music that have changed the most from the forms of the past) are not very popular. This is the age of soundbytes. Most people listen to music on portable MP3 players, and when I am listening to music with a group of friends, I rarely hear an entire song played through. Interesting music is being made, but for the most part, I fear it's not being heard.
First, Cage points out that people are constantly taking an interest in the sounds that they hear. In fact, he seems to be saying that we can't help it - we are bothered when we cannot hear something. His main point, then, is that music will continue to incorporate new and interesting sounds until the point where musicians will utilize every possible tone. Generally, in producing music, a musician will write a combination of notes, and each note will have a specific tone, according to a specific scale. So there are a finite number of notes to choose from. This idea is much like the diagram of an atom - the electrons in their energy levels being analogous to notes in music. The electrons must stay on one of the designated paths in an atom - they cannot rest in between one of those paths. Similarly, musical notes must fall on a very specific frequency... Or so it was thought. But Cage argues that musical notes and tones can and will explore the space between the normal frequencies. And he says that musicians will begin to use electronic instruments to do this. Cage says that the fundamental idea of tones will differ greatly in future, but we will still look to the past to gather our ideas about form and structure.
As a musician, I think that many of the predictions that John Cage made in 1937 have come true. Music is evolving. But I question the effect that new forms of music are having on people. The most evolved forms of music (that is, the forms of music that have changed the most from the forms of the past) are not very popular. This is the age of soundbytes. Most people listen to music on portable MP3 players, and when I am listening to music with a group of friends, I rarely hear an entire song played through. Interesting music is being made, but for the most part, I fear it's not being heard.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
