IM Lecture week 5

Some notes that I took from this weeks symposium.            

1. Bordwell and Thompson state that after watching Rail Road Turnbridge a person “cannot see bridges in the same way” thus experimental films are not just art for arts sake. Can/are Korsakow projects art for arts sake, or can they effect the way people see things? Or like Rail Road Turnbridge are they both at once?

Korsakow changes the way people (the audience) and the maker see things -It  repeats through the clip, constantly showing the viewer the images – presenting them in a new light – changes what people see, ultimately changing how you think. Changes not only what you notice but what you associate the clips with i.e. The waterfall with the light – Hannah’s example.
Most of our clips have been observational – Represent everyday life and situations in abstract ways -invite us to notice the qualities of the objects in the film.
Taking the familiar and making it Unfamiliar and new. In these abstract films, you notice things that you usually take for granted. – Ultimately, taking the  familiar and abstracting it – less about what they mean, and more about a newfound appreciation for the objects you’ve viewed.
Documentary wants to engage with the world and has an ambition to change something in it.
It’s (documentary) is always about change – change your P.O.V, understudying etc.
Art for Arts sake

Even if it’s only for you to notice how you change how you notice something in the world
Adrian was troubled by the idea that something can’t be for itself.
Korsakow is interesting because as a maker it can make you change what you think about what you’re making.  Think differently about what you’re already thinking about – linearity – It makes you question your basic assumptions, associations much more useful outcome – interrogates you.
Robot wrote a story – none of our assumptions are safe (always going to have journalists etc) 
Think differently about your roles as a filmmaker.
What we are doing right now is more about filmmakers than audiences.
Think about documentary about always engaging the world – always change your understanding (This really relates to the cinema readings on all the different modes!!!)

2. Bordwell and Thompson devote a lot of attention to the formal structure and sequence order to deconstruct films, yet through some i-Docs the individual creates their own unique structure. What other methods can we employ to deconstruct i-Docs, and does this interactive structure take some creative control away from the author/filmmaker?

Interactivity offers possibilities!!
Similar to the way people navigate through a map, Provides infinite ways the parts can be connected.
To some extent, the author has a large degree of control over how their work can be viewed, but they cannot control the numerous amounts of different interoperation that will arise from it.
The question was asked; ‘do we need to define something in order to deconstruct it?’
How different could out Korsakow films be if we’re all using the same footage – different keywords are used for everyone though, so ultimately, all different types of films could be created. You’ve still got control of the outcome, despite the fact you’re using the same footage as others.
Adrian used the example of how in year 1 editing, we cut up a story and put it back into chronological order. Everyone arranged it differently to a way that made sense to them. There was no such thing as one right one (theoretically speaking).
At the same time, as a creator, using Korsakow is a surrender of control.
Korsakow is an example of a media that differs greatly (opinion wise) from those who make it and those who just write about it.
Films like this (abstract/experimental films) do take some of the creative power away from the maker – traditional = don’t mess with me order. Where as the New Media = there is an assumption that audiences and even the media itself will ‘play’ with your order and work.
Filmmakers role changers – more as an experienced designer. What your building for your audience is how to experience and engage with your work.
The experience is what people buy for now. E.G. buying a hard copy book = hold and caress.
Designers providing experiences for other people – no longer throwing out fixed, rigid, opinion.
You absolutely surrender control – you have to come to terms with that.
Building things to sell – can’t make a career on that shit. Someone will always make it cheaper and better. No longer will I make a product and sell it. They want the experience.

3. Do the readings of experimental films rely on the audience that is observing them? And if so to what extent is experimental film an interpretation?

 

EXPERIMENTAL FILMS are filmed differently and viewed differently.

Totally relies on interpretation
EF use abstraction open for interpretation – because of that, more room for interpretation. Why do we need to rely on audiences to validate?
As an EFM you can make these for yourself, you don’t always need to justify them for audiences.
Audiences come later – different from selling things to the market
Although, All films rely on audiences to interpret – EF aren’t a special case.
To what extent = same as any other film is an interpretation. Feature film – everything that it doesn’t tell or show – how many years, gaps that we are able to fill in – that all relies on interpretation
Stealing from the industries – why do you think people won’t pirate yourself??? You do it, so why won’t they. Think of how you treat the media – That’s exactly how they will treat you. That is the mistake you make = the way we want to deal with my media, is the way everyone else will treat it the same way.

Nothing is set in stone – people are going to mess up your stuff!!!!