What are experimental films without interpretation? can they exist without an audience? I would say kind of they do exist without an audience, just they mean less. Unlike normal linear films experimental films is beyond the confines of what we assume is the norm and therefore require us to apply a contextual meaning to it. What Hannah said about experiemental films make sense upon association i guess is also applied to normal films.The difference i feel is that experimental films will always have a different meaning and interpretation for everyone, whereas linear structural films will always have the same underlying principal.
What about Korsakow interactive documentaries? DO they need an audience? Korsakow is unique in that its different to film. SO the constraints we face are broken. Korsakow feels more like a game a than a film. Everything feels very disjointed. Since i have not fully experienced it, i’ll reevaluate my thoughts later.

Another key point was how can footage of the same theme create different stories. If we take the same footage we are using for Korsakow and show ti to different people everyone will have different links that they share or associate with the specific imagery. So each outcome is differnet for each person. Korsakow, is it even film to begin with? I think Korsakow is too different for it to have the same confides as a film so therefore should not apply the same rules towards it.

20140331 231716 from Tony Mai on Vimeo.

20140331 221734 from Tony Mai on Vimeo.

20140331 231948 from Tony Mai on Vimeo.

Is our life a narrative? As Adrian said, life isn’t a narrative yet. The 2 cones analogy provided a great way to understand the 2 different methods of storytelling. An open cone represents open ended stories and possibilities <, even though we can apply that to our lives i do believe once again it is how you define the end. We could say a life will always end in the same ending of death. However even though death would mean a closed cone >, because of the different paths could there be a fusion between the 2 cones or do we have to separate them entirely for the specific natures and outcomes. The notion of taxonomy can be seen to apply here as well. I’m not sure how relevant or intertwined they are but they seem to have some form of connection. It is interesting to note that our lives aren’t narratives in that events need to have passed in order for us to narrate them or someone else will. OUr lives are both stories and narratives. While we are in the present life is a story unfolding, but when we die our lives become a narrative. This reminds me of the movie Strange than Fiction, in which Will Ferrells life is being narrated in the present, so his life takes the form of a > cone as his fate is decided at every whim.

In cinema studies we had to do this reading and watch the films mentioned in it. I wouldn’t say they were bad films, but i will say i did not enjoy them. I understand what the reading talks about how there are 2 types of experimental films one being association, abstract and the other rhythmic. I find that experimental films work much in the same way how a song can display a narrative through the way it is put together rather than the images being shown. Some of the films were quite creepy and ominous in a The Ring sort of way where its just creepy because it’s wierd. This reading also explained the difference between plot, story and narrative which i thought were all the same, but the minor differences such as diegetic and non diegetic sounds and visuals add onto each other in turn distinguishing them from each other. I find that this is a prime example of an example of what Adrian was talking about taxonomies and how we should create new terms for each new thing on what they do. First starts off with plot then as we add on more and more we get the story and the narrative. In the case of experimental films though i find taht these 3 terms are blurred as story would be the authors original intent, but then narrative could be completely different due the range of sounds and imagery actually used.

An interesting point which Adrian brought up was on taxonomy. How definitions are pretty much redundant and that we should define things for what they do. I wasn’t really convinced by this argument at first, but during the tutorial Adrian brought up how we call things video and film yet they are neither of these. In a way i guess then Adrian was correct in saying having a taxonomy is pretty ridiculous. However i do believe definitions are still needed even so just for the sake of being guidelines.This all just reminds me of English class during vce where teachers always say oh the rules always have exceptions and you break them for artistic license and you are just left thinking what… Why have i been learning these rules which were kinda definitions just so i could break them. The funny thing was when we did break them the teachers never though our intention was artistic enough to warrant our inconsistency.

20140324 233425 from Tony Mai on Vimeo.

20140324 233215 from Tony Mai on Vimeo.

20140324 232439 from Tony Mai on Vimeo.

20140310 224048 from Tony Mai on Vimeo.

20140317 214915 from Tony Mai on Vimeo.

20140317 130517 from Tony Mai on Vimeo.

20140317 215032 from Tony Mai on Vimeo.

The videos i filmed are uploading atm so i’ll attach them to a separate blog post each later. I have no idea why it takes 20 minutes to upload 16mbs vids… I might as well talk about the tutorial last week. This is pretty much network media 2.0 from what i gather, but with a more hands on approach with more work production rather in addition to more theory. The class seems all good so far, everyone seems nice, tutor and lecturer is engaging so i can’t really ask for much more. hopefully the semester will be all good.