A little bit of talk about Korsakow.

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 art’s sake. Can/are Korsakow projects art for art’s sake, or can they affect the way people see things? Or like Rail Road Turnbridge are they both at once?

To really answer this question, there’d have to be a long philosophical discussion about art and what it really is. A lot of art that you’d just say was art for art’s sake – for example, abstract art – tells the viewer something in the way it’s created. Anyway, does art really need a reason to be art? Music can be created to be beautiful, as can literature and ballet. Art doesn’t necessarily have to be more than art to be beautiful and to have value.

Korsakow films are different in that they’re more observational. Seth brings up ‘Money and the Greeks’, and the Greek financial situation to make some kind of socio-political point. It allows audience interaction, and different audiences react differently in different situations and locations. In addition, Korsakow allows for more experimental works.

2. B & T 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?

This question was very long. I don’t think you need to define something absolutely in order to deconstruct it. We can always draw from the things we already know in order to apply them to what we’re looking at. (FYI: deconstruction =/= close reading.)

There’s also no such thing as a canonical order – Adrian brings us a blast from the past in the form of Editing Media Texts, where we rearranged fragments of a story into what we thought was the correct order. Everyone did it differently.

In addition, academics would call Korsakow films hypertext films, but interestingly, there is a big gap between those who make and those who don’t make digital media. There is no road map for this kind of work, which is why it’s so exciting. Rather than producing, we will be designing. “Building things to sell is not how you make money anymore.”

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?

Yes. (The short answer.) I think the question is oddly worded. Films don’t necessarily have to be made for the audience. They can be made for the maker. However, there is more room for abstraction and for varying readings. For example, watching a romantic comedy, there isn’t much room for interpretation: it’s wonderful that person A and person B get together at the end, overcoming various obstacles. Done. While there is room for movement: there are plenty of gaps one can fill in and interpret in the way they see fit.

Adrian gives us an example of a very literal alien who has never watched cinema which amuses me greatly. All film is dependent on interpretation, but I think experimental film allows for much more interpretation, as it usually rejects narrative, or at least experiments with it.

4. Can you present a persuasive argument using rhetorical form with a Korsakow type film?

People want to mess things up. They want to change things and revisit things and remix things. There is a model of engagement, where you can return to something, and it will provide you something different each time.