Choose 3 of the films we watched in class and answer the following questions. Answer all questions for each film to create at least 3 hearty paragraphs.
Le Retour a la Raison
Entr'acte
Le Ballet Mecanique
Un Chien Andalou
Meshes of the Afternoon (this is the one with the Maya Deren interview)
What do you notice about the film's presentation of cinematic space? What do you see on screen? For example, lots of landscapes or closeups? Moving or statics camera?
How does the director's use of lighting help to create meaning?
Do you identify with the camera's lens? What does the director compel you to see? What is left to your imagination? What does the director leave out altogether? Describe the mise-en-scene and how it helps to create meaning in the film.
What implicit meaning do you find in the film?
If you can't get enough of the avante garde cinema, check out this site: http://www.ubu.com/film/.
If you want to look more into Jonas Mekas, go here: http://jonasmekas.com/diary/
Due: Monday, 9/16
The three films I chose to analyze were Le Retour a la Raison, La Ballet Mecanique, and
ReplyDeleteIn Le Retour a la Raison, there really isn't much space presented. It reminds me of old Elmo projectors. The only thing that allows us to see objects is the lighting itself. The camera remains static throughout nearly the entire film. To me, it seemed like Man Ray attempting to make us look at everyday objects - nails, springs, etc... - in a different light. He moves these objects around on the screen as we view them in quick succession. There are several shots that don't involve projection. However, all the shots that are in this way involve rotating objects. Again, I believe this is Ray trying to allow us to see these objects from different angles and degrees. In first of the final two "scenes" we see a rotating object that casts interesting shadows on the wall. This transitions nicely into the torso of a nude woman, rotating, who has similar shadows cast upon her body. To have a very subjective ending to a very objective film seems rather odd, and perhaps contributes to the randomness of the film. Not being a connoisseur in Avant Garde cinema, especially this seemingly simplistic version, I find it very difficult to relate to Man Ray's perspective. There was really nothing for me to connect with, and I feel like the director did leave a lot of the meaning up to us. Besides the lighting and the shadow, and the rather odd vision of a woman at the end, he didn't give the viewer much to work with in terms of interest.
Leger's Le Ballet Mecanique, in contrast to Le Retour, balances focus on objects and humans, as we cut back and forth between the two. Like Ray, Leger plays with lighting, however while Ray used very stark black and white contrast, Leger delves into the more warm, sepia/yellow lighting contrasted with a dusky black. While most of the film featured static camera, the objects in focus were always in motion. In the film, not only was light played with, but angles were as well. The recurring image of the mouth going from smile to frown was able to in the viewer compel a sense of intrigue. In addition, Leger plays with a kaleidoscope effect to alter the images and make them more interesting to the viewer. One part in particular I found interesting was the shot of an elderly woman climbing steps that, when shown, was repeated multiple times in a row for no particular reason. Nearing the end of the film, a kaleidoscope esque effect relieves the curiosity of the woman whose smile occupies so much of our attention in the beginning and the rest of her face is revealed. I found this film much more enjoyable than the first film because there was, while not a plot, more of a story. The majority of images weren't merely projections, but were filmed. Additionally,the presences of more humans and human emotion allowed for us to connect in a more humanistic way and react based on what we saw the humans do. I feel as though the director wanted us to connect the objects to the humans to create meaning.
Bunuel's Un Chien andalou was completely different from the first two films I examined. It involves much more moving camera and collective ideas as opposed to stationary camera and unnatural, consistent movement within the frame. The entire film was composed mostly of wide and medium shots, and closeups were rare (and were reserved primarily for the mysterious bug-hand that popped up every few minutes). Even though the structure of the film was more similar to that of other films released around the same time, there still is a large degree of "randomness" that allows it the title Avant Garde. One scene in particular I found especially odd was the one in which a man was attempting to take advantage of a woman. He chases her around for a bit and then proceeds to get her against a wall and grope her breasts. When we see his hands on her chest, the shot fades in and out from her clothed to her nude. We cut back and forth to the man's face, which looks almost grotesque and nonhuman. Perhaps in this scene, Bunuel is trying to say something about men and their change of persona when they are around women. Later in the scene, the woman backs herself into a corner, using a racket of sorts as a weapon. At that point, the man pulls several grand pianos with what appear to be cows between the lid and the inner-piano, in front of which are several men dressed in all black (perhaps Rabbais?). This was so completely unexpected that it contributes largely to the Avant Garde aspect of the film.
DeleteI found difficulty detecting meaning in all three films I analyzed, however, as somebody in a YouTube comment put it, maybe we don't understand because there is nothing to understand. And maybe that's what Avant Garde film is all about - filmmaking for the sake of filmmaking.
Le Retour a la Raison, and Entr'acte were quite different, in most aspects than Meshes of the Afternoon. They were filmed quite differently, seemed to emphasize the abstractness of film elements such as lighting, shot composition and editing to create a surreal yet tangible universe. On the other hand, Meshes of the afternoon was much less nonlinear, seeming to have a plot, as well as character development, rising action, and a finale. It seemed that Maya Deren was trying to link her view of how surrealism and Avant Garde films should be and the more accepted (at the time) Hollywood-esque films were.
ReplyDeleteIn the first two films, the film's presentation of cinematic space were mostly similar. The camera was mostly static, having a few moving shots each. This was most likely because of the technical challenges that had to be endured because of the gigantic equipment. On screen, the respective directors choose to have many close ups, sometimes spinning what was on screen or mixing it with various shots of other assorted objects. Lighting was used very uniquely, especially in La Retour a La Raison. There were many shots of simply flashing lights, the source unknown. My favourite shots were those of the carousel, with the top lights spinning, the rest of the shot being dark. The camera lens was very hard to identify with in both Le Retour a la Raison and Entr'acte, due to the lack of dialogue/narrative. The director compelled the viewer to see exactly what he wanted, and nothing more. For example, in Entr'acte, he had many parallel shots of similar actions, almost intended to confuse the viewer. This made the film seems even more unrealistic then if one ignored that.
I found it really hard to find either implicit or explicit in any of the films. It was very confusing, lacking narritive, or any plot. It seemed to be purely experimenting for the sake of experimenting, and maybe that's exactly what they wanted people to think
In Le Retour a la Raison Man Ray utilizes many close ups, although there are some instances of landscapes such as the amusement park ride. Most of this film is close-ups on random objects that are played at a very fast pace, maybe to experiment with movement. Man Ray also used the static camera as opposed to a moving camera. The use of lighting in this film is also very interesting as Man Ray experiments with shadows and negatives. The scene with the spinning machine is a great example of how Man Ray was contrasting the light and dark images. The white lights in the completely dark background grab the viewer’s attention more fully. This use of light and dark can also be used to describe how Man Ray uses the camera lens/angle to grab the viewer’s attention. A prime example of this is, again, the spinning machine scene. The different camera angles and constantly moving lights immediately attract the eyes. Also, when the machine was only partly on screen but still spinning to the left, the contrast between the lights and the pitch black right screen sparks more interest on the screen. The only implicit meaning that I could find from such a simple film is that the human eye is always attracted to movement, especially in film. Man Ray was trying to stress the importance of movement in cinema, and the precedent will always be there.
ReplyDeleteEntr'acte is a short film created by Rene Clair in 1924. Rene, like most films during this time, favored the static camera over the moving camera but there are some moving camera scenes, such as the chase scene. Also, most of the scenes are either played in very fast or very slow motion, which means he too was experimenting with movement. Rene's use of lighting is less significant compared to Le Retour a la Raison. Rene uses more natural lighting than anything. The lack of logical transitions between shots make it a little harder to make a meaning out of what Rene was trying to do, but maybe that was the point; to leave the explicit meaning to the eyes of the beholder. As I looked for some type of implicit meaning for this film, I came across a description that may justify what Rene Claire was doing with this film. Maybe the films story was used "to slaughter causality by using the innate dynamism of the film medium to overturn conventional Aristotelian notions of time and space" which would make sense since the narrative has no linear themes.
The last film I chose to analyze is Un Chien Andalou, which was directed by Luis Banuel in 1928. Unlike his counterparts during the Avante Garde era, he uses much more moving camera shots along with the static shots. He also favors medium shots with the characters centered in the shot through most of the film. This whole film feels like one big dream, and the lighting Banuel uses helps to enhance that feeling. The shadows and over-exaggerated lighting in some close-ups makes the scene with the pervert look surreal and dreamlike. This film is also different from the other Avante Garde films because there seems to be more of a plot, although not much. Much like the title of the movie translated to English(The Andalusian Dog) the story doesn’t make much sense, but the experiments of editing and lighting helped influence the film culture of today.
The 3 Avant Garde films I have chosen are Le Ballet Mecanique, Un Chien Andalou, and Meshes of the afternoon. These three films are known for being part of Avant Garde Cinema because of the way that the directors experimented with the various aspects of film language in order to create an experimental film that people can interpret to have their own meaning drawn from it.
ReplyDeleteIn Le Ballet Mecanique several aspects of film language are twisted in order to create an original output into the making of this film. The cinematic space in the film is dominated by close ups. Pretty much everything portrayed in the film is shown in close up, either close ups of a woman’s face, or close ups of several different kinds of machines. This contributes to the overall meaning of the film because the director only wants you to notice the things in the foreground, the things that are moving spinning, or directly in your face taking up the entirety of the screen. The camera is always pretty much stationary, making the viewer focus on the kinesis of the objects on the screen rather than call attention to the movement of the camera itself. The mise-en-scene of the film, therefore, is how we can draw the most meaning when the director wants us to concentrate on the mise-en-scene with these previous cinematic choices. Throughout the entire film we see the comparison of the woman and several different machines and mechanical objects moving. We see a woman on a swing, turning her head, blinking, and smiling, noting the intense difference of her dark makeup to her white face. This dark to light difference is seen between the white shapes in the dark background that we see from time to time. Also the movements of the woman are contrasted to balls on swings swinging around in front and towards the camera, we see engines and factory like machines turning and working, and we see blinking numbers and lights throughout the film as well. These comparisons can come together at times like when a man rises from between mechanical like things, and when we get a quick shot of kids on rides in an amusement park. Could these subtle comparisons between the seemingly random shots of machines and a woman be Leger’s way of saying that the machine world will soon become an overwhelmingly large part of people’s lives? And why specifically use a woman instead of over using a man’s qualities? Does Leger think that this mechanization is a beautiful thing and thus makes these similarities shown? These are the things that are left open to the viewer to see and I see these things being commented on in this film, possibly.
The second film I analyzed was Un Chien Andalou, which is a Spanish Avant Garde film that was co created by Bunuel and Dali who was an iconic painter in the surrealist movement of the art world. In this film there are a string of random events that become somehow connected to create one extremely surrealistic Avant Garde film. Throughout the film, the camera is pretty much static allowing the viewer only to focus on the events being portrayed at that angle, unless a cut is used. This gives the viewer the perspective of one who is dreaming who usually focuses on single, events, motionless from a point of viewing and watches what takes place. Also the cinematic space is usually left pretty open, with not too many extremely close up shots, but close enough that you can make out what is happening in the scene, again creating that almost dreamer POV mentality. This idea of a dream is created with the mise-en-scene of the film which, used in this way, creates a surrealistic, almost nightmare like world that our characters are put into. Several instances of low-key lighting on character’s faces create feelingsof fear, anxiety, or give a character a look of evil or corruption on their face. Lighting also plays a factor in the man who has two personalities in the film, one good and one evil, with the one having a lighter color suit, and the other a darker colored suit, creating the difference between the two.
Props used in this film also create the surrealistic nightmare type world. A severed hand in the street, then the girl gets hit by a car out of no where, a girl’s eyeball being cut in half with razor, images of the evil man physically violating the woman, and random dead animals appearing on pianos he is pulling all create images that occur to be almost nightmare like. And in a nightmare you experience scary things but your brain almost always pulls them out at random as a result of your brain processing random information it has received. So this kind of random film can be equated to surrealism, being almost dream like but in a frightening dream like way, which is the meaning I extract from this film, because of the fact that that is the style in which Bunuel’s partner Dali worked with.
ReplyDeleteThe last Avant Garde film analyzed was Meshes of the Afternoon directed by Maya Deren. This film, like Un Chien Andalou, is almost surrealistic and dream like with its use of camera movements paired with the mise-en-scene. The cinematic space and the moving camera have a lot to do with what makes this film very experimental. The cinematic space early on is dominated with shadows, the use of shadows instead of really showing the woman can be a way of preventing us from seeing the real person. This use of shadow can also be juxtaposed with the dark figure with a mirror for a face that is seen often throughout the film, maybe suggesting that the conflict of this film is an internal struggle for the main character, as the figure in black seems to be a symbol of some kind of problem or evil thought going on during this film. The mirror in the figures face also shows that when the woman looks at it, it would have her face, making the figure maybe a representation of feelings she is contemplating? Moving camera is used to create a dream like world because they manipulate the motions of the camera with the motions of the woman to make it seem as if the world around her is shifting, and wobbling, and turning upside down creating effects that could only happen during a dream of some sort. Also the mise-en-scene contributes to the films dream like qualities, including images that reappear often like the several version of the woman that all group in one spot, the transitioning of props from a key into a knife, and back into a key, and the mirror all creates this dream like state, where things can happen like this. The creation of this dream like state can have several meanings in context with the films narrative. This could all be a visual representation of the ideas going through the woman’s head as she contemplates her suicide. The reappearing images could be her revisiting all of her problems or options, the knife re appearing can be her continous thoughts of suicide, the re appearing dark figure and chasing of it could be her thinking she should just chase after the cause of her problems, but the dark figure has a mirror face and is juxtaposed with her shadow, so is she her own problem? Does she see flaw in herself that makes her wanna kill herself? The man could be someone in her real life that contributes to these thoughts also, as he is seen as being in the mirror that shatters. But ultimately she meets with several versions of herself at one place, a table surrounding a key that turns into a knife. So does she realize that all these different outcomes all lead to the same thing? The same decision? We can never know for sure what Avant Garde films truly mean but that is the beauty of them, you can create the meaning in the way that the director uses cinematic language loosely and vaguely, to take his/ her creation and draw your own meaning out of this experimental film.
i have this blog post finished, but i cant copy and paste from google docs on my home computer. ill transfer it over tomorrow in school
ReplyDeletei have this blog post finished, but i cant copy and paste from google docs on my home computer. ill transfer it over tomorrow in school
ReplyDeletei have this blog post finished, but i cant copy and paste from google docs on my home computer. ill transfer it over tomorrow in school
ReplyDeleteIn the film “Le Retour a la Raison,” the form and function of cinema was literally being defined. Seeing as at this time there was little in the way of actual film, the Avant Garde cinematographers wanted to push the boundaries on what was possible and see where they could take film. In this film, there is a lot of close ups. The cinematographers liked to put the subject up in our face, and this let us see very precisely what they wanted us to. Also, the close ups made it so that our attention was thoroughly focused on the objects at hand. The camera itself was static in this film, but there was a great deal of on screen kinesis. Light was very important in this film, as many of the effects revolved around the presentation of light on screen, specifically the movement of light and its contrast with darkness. The film as a whole is very disjointed, almost confusing, as it has no actual narrative and consists simply of many different changing images meant to dazzle the viewer. There doesn’t seem to be much meaning besides that, but the director used sudden dramatic edits to jump between the images on the screen in some instances, while in others layering or fades were used to draw similarities between images.
ReplyDelete“Entr’acte” deviated from “Le Retour a la Raison” in the fact that “Entr’acte” hqd small bursts of narrative throughout, where “La Raison” had none. “Entr’acte” would tell short stories, then use transitions, usually in the form of a person doing some type of action, to move to another story. The cinematography of this movie was much like how current cinema is in regard to placement of objects and people, but there are also close ups to show specific points of interest, like looking down the barrel of a man’s rifle toward his face, or a close up of a dancer's legs. Though primarily static, there are moments where the camera is kinetic to exaggerate the movement of an onscreen object. The contrast of light and dark is used in this film to accentuate details or draw the viewers eye to certain areas in the frame. This film seemed to be crafted to represent a sort of dream space, where weird things can happen, but they are just normal enough to not be wholly outlandish. It seemed that the director and cinematographer were trying to make a fun and cool movie. The camera is placed in such a way that the viewer feels as though they are actually watching what is happening on the screen because of how the camera stays level with the action. Some of the angles, however, are from unusual angles, which further supports the idea of a dream space.
“Un Chien Andalou” is very similar to “Entr’acte” as it follows the dreamscape idea. It differs in narrative, however, as “Un Chien Andalou has one solid narrative, albeit a mildly complicated one. This film had a lot of medium and long shots so that the viewer could see all of what was happening in the cinematic worlds, as there was a lot of action to be seen. The camera is static throughout the film. Lighting is important in this film because it helps set the mood for the scenes. For example, the scenes in the house have a lot of shadow in the corners and deep shadows around the room in order to create a sense of foreboding, and maybe even mystery or confusion, that helps express the content of the scenes. Most of the actions and objects and actions are present on screen, and the only thing left to the imagination is trying to decide how said objects are able to transport to vastly different environments so quickly (again, supporting the dreamscape idea). The movie itself appears to be a story about a girl, her love interest, and how her relationship with said person leads to her untimely death.
In Entr’acte by Rene Claire, there was a lot of movement on screen, and a lot of urban landscapes posed at odd angles with the screen. This prevents the audience from identifying with the camera lens because nothing is connected from shot to shot. The interruption of one event by another is very quick and rapid in succession allowing the audience no rest. Like with the boxing gloves and the ballerina. We see a bunch of racially drawn balloons on a train deflate, then reinflate, but then all of a sudden we’re watching a ballerina from below, yet returning even sooner after that to the racial balloons. The balloons fade out to introduce boxing gloves which fade into an urban crosswalk. Like this example, the director mixes things together and connects a lot of things that have no true relevance to each other.
ReplyDeleteIn Retour a la Raison by Man Ray, there was little to the movie other than the contrasting of black and white. The director leaves out everything except for the light and dark of things, especially with the negative representations of some shapes (like the spinning top, the nails, and the spring), but also he plays with light, as in the scene in the last few shots where he experiments with the shading from the lights on the breasts of the woman. But other than that no implicit meaning was conveyed through the filming of this, and many of the other avant garde films, because personally it seems like the directors were attempting to break the boundaries on the editing of films and the effects that they can use, rather than meaning or development of plot, otherwise each one wouldn’t include some form of groping or nudity.
The three Avant Garde films I choose were Entr'acte, Le Ballet Mechanique, and Meshes of the Afternoon.
ReplyDeleteIn Entr'acte, one thing that I noticed about the presence of cinematic space were that there were lots of weird dutch angles and strange shots: none of them in which were point of view. There were lots of closeups of random objects and muzzles (such as the cannon and the rifle) as well as dolls with balloon-like heads and other inanimate objects. There were not many close-ups of people's expressions, hinting that the focus was mainly on the objects and things appearing throughout the film. Also, there were lots of overlapping transparent shots which sort of distorted the space of the film and drew attention away from specific things. Overall, the composition of shots is extremely random and experimental. Lighting helped to play a role mainly when portraying the ballet dancer, as she (or he) was wrapped in darkness while dancing seemingly on top of the lens of the camera. However, from what I noticed most of the shots were outside so artificial lighting didn't seem very important overall. The mise-en-scene in this film is very unique, and is probably one of the most important aspects dealing with the portrayal of things throughout the film. The director uses the lens to compel us to see many things while at the same time drawing attention away from certain things. I found the use of slow motion and sped up motion to be unique and almost dream-like in the film. From the constant moving around of people in various speeds to the overlapping of shots, the film itself feels like one big hallucination. It's so out of order that you almost don't even know what to think, which I believe was the director's intent. It's hard to draw implicit meaning from this film as a whole or by section. However, there are little narratives present in each few minutes of the film, but even while the narratives are going on your still not quite sure what's happening. It's very much like a dream, in which after experiencing it you're not even sure if whether what you recall is accurate or not.
Le Ballet Mecanique is pretty self-descriptory: a mechanical ballet packed with strobing lights, objects, mechanics and geometric shapes. Every shot in this 10-minute film was a close up, whether it was the woman's facial features or a random moving object. The only non close-ups I could identify were at the very beginning and end when introducing the woman, which seemingly depicted her as the one watching or imagining this mechanical ensemble. The shots were also quick to cut and averaged about 5 seconds long, so overall the feeling of watching this "ballet" is pretty wild. There's an abundance of static camera, but lots of movement within the frame to make up for it. The use of lighting is highly significant in this film, where the contrast between black and white is very apparent. There is an immense amount of strobing light, which adds another element of wildness and chaos to this composition of moving objects, and the contrast between black and white helps to keep the focus on the moving objects and even the facial features of the random woman. The lighting is very harsh, and goes along perfectly with the chaotic tone of the film. What I drew from this film is that the director was very much trying to put on a performance, but at the same time contrasting a seemingly innocent girl with her inner thoughts. It was evident that the mechanical ballet reflected the inner most thoughts and imaginings of the woman on the swing, and shows that what is seemingly calm and peaceful can be a totally different thing at the same time. With so many different movements, motions, and light flashing going on, it's hard to even focus or follow what is happening, and in fact promotes a very exited feeling within the viewer, which I believe was the director's intent.
Finally, Meshes of the Afternoon is probably the most nightmarish of the three films, and reminds you of one of those repetitive nightmares that you can't escape. Shot wise, the film is very slow-paced and the shots are longer and switch between static and moving. The shot is usually moving when it represents the point of view of the woman. In fact, there are mostly point of view shots in this film, putting us right inside of the mesh itself, and in fact makes it feel more like a dream. The lighting used in this film is very faded and well blended into the shots and the face of the woman. This made the atmosphere even more dreary. However, the natural lighting outside was very harsh and it was easy to see the shadows of different things such as the woman moving about or the flower. The mise-en-scene, especially within the household, was attention specific to certain objects that I took note of as I was watching the film: the telephone, the record player, the table, and even things such as the key, knife, and flower were of heightened significance when put into the frame. Using these objects, the director tries to form a cycle of events in which the woman continues to experience, and the fact that different versions of her keep coming from the same scenario/chain of events is proof of that.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Maya Deren’s Meshes of the Afternoon, the majority of the shots are close-ups and do not display large amounts of space. The unusual cinematography compliments the unclear events as they unfold, giving it a dream-like feeling. This is prominent within the way that the camera seems to float as it follows the protagonist. A fantastic example of this is located towards the middle of the film, when the black figure walks upstairs and the protagonist attempts to follow it. The camera shifts from left to right as if it were on a boat, adding to the dreamlike, unstable feeling that we feel. Also when she sits on the stairs, unable to catch the hooded figure, I can’t help but to think about Ringu (when Sadako’s victim’s aren’t able to move). The film’s lighting is key, because the shadow’s that are created implies symbolism behind the protagonist’s life and situation. Close-ups of the shadows as they creep across the screen really adds to the mysteriousness, along with the uncomfortable non-diegetic music popping up in the background. The shadows add another dimension to the abstract world. I believe that the dark shadows represent the protagonist’s possible dual personalities or layers. Maybe Maya Deren made this film as abstract as it is so that we can use our imagination to access an area of understanding, rather than just throwing it at us.
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure where to start with the film Ballet Mécanique, it’s Avant Garde times 1000. The nineteen minute film is composed of random shots of people, machine parts, and other objects. Basically every shot is close up onto the main subject, so it seems to be up in our face. The entire film is a hypnotizing experience, with machine parts spinning and rotating within the frame. The shots that are moving, such as the one with the woman on the swing, convey this hypnotic and unsteady feeling even more. Each shot is mainly made up of white and black areas, where the lighter areas stick out more. The light areas of each shot also flash when they cut. It’s quite hard to extract a meaning behind the film, but yet again it is basically an experience experiment. We are supposed to use our imagination to make sense of it. The first shot is of the woman swinging, then cuts to the three bottles, then a white triangle, then a circular hat… It has illuminati written all over it. These same shots repeat multiple times, so Léger and Murphy were trying to emphasize a symbol.
And then there’s Le Retour à la raison. The only moving shots are of a merry-go-round at night, and the majority of the shots are 2d animated textures created with a rayograph. Man Ray takes the rayograph images and animates them through stop motion techniques. The combination between the nails and all of the other objects sparks my imagination, it’s very surreal. ǝsuǝs ɥɔnɯ ǝʞɐɯ ʇ’uop sƃuıɥʇ. In the shot where the divider object is spinning, he experiments with lighting by casting a shadow onto the wall. This adds a lot of motion into the shot, making it more interesting.
In Le Retour a la Raison there is never a constant, understandable presentation of cinematic space. The viewer’s perspective is always distorted. It cannot always be assured whether something is very large and the shot is far away or something is very small and the shot is very close up. The swing/ride shown may be more clearly more of a landscape shot, and the image of the naked woman might be more clearly a close up, but when there are just objects (the pound sign, the nails, the circles, etc) knowing their size and distance from the camera is nearly impossible. The lighting is very important in creating these illusions. There is a lot of experiment with shadows and light’s effects on the end image on the film. In the frames when the subject is clearer, the lighting is extreme. The shadows/bright light on the woman distorts her and almost looks like a high tech effect on a camera, but could not have been as the film was produced in 1923. The presentation of the ride is very dark save for the movement of the lights around the ride. When the subject is relatively unknown, the lighting is brighter, for example in the beginning. We don’t know what is on the screen even though we are able to see it clearly. This may lead to an implicit theme questioning what we know and see, everything may not be as it seems, and everything has a greater purpose and composition than we can understand. The camera in this short film is basically always static. There is a lot of movement on the screen, the movement is very important, but the camera stays in one place. I feel in this film I don’t identify with the camera lens as much as in other films. There aren’t point of view shots, there is no narrative. This is more of an art presentation being presented to us to lend some meaning, not a story of which we are supposed to feel a part. The director is focusing deeply on a few subjects or moments, or images he wants us to see, in the way he is showing them. To that extent we are at the will of the director, however, in an avant garde film like this a lot more is left to the imagination. Like a painting, more so than a Hollywood blockbuster, everyone who sees this will get something different out of it.
ReplyDeleteAgain, in Le Ballet Mecanique, the film’s cinematic space is much distorted. But the filmmakers do it in different ways in this film. There is a lot of very fast moving camera, which disorients the viewer. Different from Le Retour a la Raison, the “normal” subjects and the unknown subjects are presented with the same amount of distortion. The reoccurring mouth motif is always just the mouth, no space around it, no face. The full woman swinging is presented normally, but no other shots of the scenario are offered and the shot is uncomfortable long. Then the same shot is presented sped up, and unside down. There are a lot of close ups, not just close ups, but shots that purposely leave out things from the viewers sight. It is a weird feeling to watch this film because aspects of shots are clearly missing to our mainstream cinema trained eyes, however we can’t identify exactly what it is we are yearning to see. The lighting in the film is slightly less obscuring than in La Retour a la Raison when “normal” subjects are presented.
For example, when there are people shown, we do not have to strain to see that they are people. However, the lighting is experimented with to make shapes, and look at unknown objects in a new way. The editing chosen by the director also plays a key role in creating meaning and compelling us to see the images in a certain way, and creating the final feeling of the work that the audience experiences. When lighting is bright and allows us to see, the shot is so incredibly short and quickly gone, and when the shot makes less sense, for example when there is a kaleidoscope effect of shots laid over each other, the shot lingers longer as we wonder at its meaning. I feel part of the implicit meaning of this film is simply questioning the status quo, it wants to make us uncomfortable, make us think, and make us question what film can do or be. For the modern viewer, the costumes, and makeup of the people we see are important in the film because they help to contextualize it for us.
ReplyDeleteIn Un Chien Andalou, cinematic space is presented in the most “normal” way of the three films I chose to analyze. There are people on the screen, they are doing things, and interacting and we can see all that, like in a typical movie. There is a mix of establishing shots and close-ups, in order to have some semblance of a narrative. Each section seems understandable on its own and is created with a mixture of shots, from different angles and distances, there are even point-of-view shots that make you identify with the camera in a way you don’t often in these experimental films. What gives this film its avant garde interest is the trying to figure out how the individual sections fit together. Figuring out the story, however you may take it, and the meaning of the story is what is really left to the imagination here. I think this film is making statements about basic human interactions, and the role of dreams or the subconscious in those interactions. Generally the camera is static in this film, when watching something take place, but at moments it moves, to follow someone’s movements. The costumes and the scenes all seem normal, then there will be a shocking moment of furniture, or the setting or a costume that just doesn’t seem to fit or make sense. That is what makes it dreamlike. The lighting is important here. A lot of the shots are open which allows us to see what is going on, we just don’t understand it. It is interesting that these three films can be so different in what they present and leave out, yet still pose similar questions to their audiences.
In Entr’acte, the cinematic space is very symmetrical in certain shots, like the first shot presented, though the movements of each person aren’t in sync, the frame is split down the middle by a cannon. In this experimental film, there are both landscape and close ups, sometimes merged together in the same scene. For example, when there was a shot of 3 balloon people (also a symmetrical shot), it looked as though they were on a train. In the background was a fast moving landscape. Before these couple shots, there was a series of shots of landscapes, all in different directions, meaning upside-down, sideways, and so forth. Another way Rene Clair merges landscaping and close ups is when one shot of two hands with boxing gloves was layered on top of a landscape of an urban city. Normally this director does not use moving camera and usually keeps it static. The directors use of lighting helps to create meaning in Entr’acte mostly through the supposed ballerina that comes up as a motif throughout the film. For the majority of the time, the camera is directly under the dancer, meaning they used a clear floor and put the camera under it. When these shots happen, it seems as though the light is coming from the side and directed at her legs. This lighting is so easy to see because. everything else in the dancer’s surroundings are black except for her, her dress, and the light. The director compels the viewer to see his unique creations: art, unique composition of shots, and editing. In many of his shots, he uses many different textures to to attempt at his experimental shots. The director leaves the dancer’s face to our imagination, he only uses the dancer’s feet. , legs, and body. In this film, it is very hard to find a plot, but later on toward the end, a small story appears of a man shot in the head and the funeral reception
ReplyDeleteIn Un Chien Andalou, for cinematic space, there are many medium-close ups and a couple long shots, but rarely landscapes. The director does use both moving and static camera. Luis Nenuel uses lighting to create meaning in Un Chien Andalou by creating similarities between close ups. The first shot being of the man’s hand being slowly eaten away by ants. Lighting is used in order to respect the contrast of the dark hole in the middle of his hand and the paleness of his hand. The next shot is of a man’s armpit that has almost the same composition of light as the hand, and then a sea urchin, also same composition. This all leads up to the amputated hand in the middle of a street. The implicit meaning of this film is the many personalities of a broken relationship.
In Meshes in the afternoon, there are no landscapes involved, but there are many close ups, which bring meaning and symbolism to what the director, Maya Deren is trying to say. She uses a lot of moving camera for there is a lot of moving and going back in time/ to the future for the main character. Maya Deren uses lighting to create meaning many times. In the first scene, you do not see the actress's face. Only through shadow. This use of shadow creates a barrier between the actress and the audience. This leads to the implicit meaning of the whole film. It takes a long time to figure out the implicit meaning of this film but through all the symbolism, and repetition, this film represents the thought process of a suicide and all the emotions brought to the table during one.
The three films I chose to analyze were Entr'acte, Le Ballet Mecanique, and Le Retour a la Raison.
ReplyDeleteThe cinematic space in Entr'acte is very interesting because both landscape shots and close up shots are used. The very first shot in the short film is an establishing (landscape) shot of the city, when all of a sudden a large cannon rolls by in the foreground and takes up the majority of the screen. The film cuts to close ups of the cannon, the people, and many other things throughout the duration of the film. It tells a story, but almost discontinuous editing keeps things interesting. The lighting in Entr'acte is also significant. I find oftentimes during the film, the background (the sky, the city, etc.) is much brighter than the foreground. For example, in the scene where the two men are jumping around in front of the cannon, the sky behind them is so bright, that the men just look like shadows. There faces cannot be seen. This leaves it up to the audience's imagination. Most of the people are dressed in darker clothing throughout the film, so this too makes the background seem brighter. It is very hard for the audience to connect with any of the characters in the film, because the shot composition is very random, and although it is telling a story, this makes it hard to follow. Small snippets of narrative can be seen at certain times in the movie, but a lot of it is random. I am not entirely sure if there is an implicit meaning to this film. I don't think there is meaning at all. I think that the director was trying to play around with this new surreal style of cinema.
In Le Ballet Mecanique, there seems to be one longer shot, and then a rapid fire of many quick shots, then a longer shot, then many quick shots. This style of cinematography is very interesting to me. There are dutch angle shots, and some shots are even upside down. The camera is steady, but the movements on screen are not. Some objects move so fast that it gives the audience a bit of a headache. These quick motions and odd angles reflect avant garde cinema very accurately. The lighting in this short film is very contrasting. There are always some objects that are very dark, and some that are very light on the screen at the same time. The screen will be flooded with light at some points, but also flooded with darkness. This gives the piece a more emotional feel. The light brings the audience hope and the dark brings the audience confusion and sadness. It is hard to identify with the camera lens in this film too because of the quick shots and the odd angles. The audience sometimes has trouble seeing what is even placed on screen. There is a lot left to the imagination in this film. There really is no story line. There isn't a plot, or many characters at all. So it is hard for the audience to connect. The images/objects on the screen may represent human emotion, but it is hard to say.
In Le Retour a la Raison, the camera is static, but the images on screen are moving rapidly. Its seems almost as if they are playing tricks on the eyes of the audience. The first shot of the film is an entire screen filled with white, black, and gray dots flashing very fast. Although the entire film is composed of quick, random shots, this particular shot appears on the screen every few seconds or so. This gives the film a sense of repetition. Its almost as if the director is telling a story. Again, in this film as well, there is a strong contrast between light and dark. This makes the light images seem even brighter and the dark images seem even darker. The fast moving images keeps the audience interested, but the meaning is left up to the viewer's imagination.
Le Retour a la Raison, and Entr'acte were quite different, in most aspects than Une Chien Andalou. They were filmed quite differently, seemed to emphasize the abstractness of film elements such as lighting, shot composition and editing to create a surreal yet tangible universe. Even though Le Retour a la Raison and Entr’acte were filmed differently, they were similar in the way that there was no foreseeable or interpretable story plot. The filmmakers were simply trying out different things with the camera. Whereas in Une Chien Andalou, however strange as it was, there was a plot and a way to interpret it into a story.
ReplyDeleteIn Le Retour a la Raison, on screen I see different objects and sometimes a lot of space, and sometimes it feels very cramped, but for the most part good amount of space. The use of lighting was usually of the object he was filming, trying to get different effects with the camera. The filmmaker it doesn’t seem leaves anything up for interpretation as I feel there is nothing to interpret. I think what is being shown is a man with a camera experimenting what things look like when shown in different ways on the camera. I feel because of this, I don't think there was any implicit meaning in this particular Avant Garde film.
In Entr’acte, on screen there was a little more of a pattern, as well as a difference with the first Avant Garde film. In this film, there is a women on a swing set and the camera records her right side up, upside down, close ups of her face smiling then frowning as well. However, in this movie the shots are all closed and seemed very cramped . Also there is a strange use of lighting as it was again only on the subject for the most part. I feel this movie, just as the other one, is completely up to your imagination as I feel there is no true meaning as I thought it was just a man with a camera who wanted to experiment with it.
This film in terms of space and cinematic integrity, I feel was the most like films we are use to now. It has somewhat of a plot and a storyline to follow. Mostly medium shots and some close ups used. Alot of the movie is seen through the camera lens and even though this has much more of a static plot, this film I feel leaves the most up to imagination because of the fact that it follows some sort of conscious thought. I personally feel the entire film is in a dream like state and was my favorite film amongst the Avant Garde.