For me, the Nekes movie "Film before Film" kept me interested because it tempted my curiosity. Each time a new early moving-image device was introduced in the film, I was baffled by its apparent simplicity and eagerly waiting for it to be properly explained and displayed. I initially questioned how such simple tricks that seemed to fit so casually into any childhood "365 do-it-yourself activity" books (i.e. afterimage, flip books, pop up books, zoescope, peep show) could have been considered so pioneering. I now realize that the attraction towards these seemingly primitive advances in moving-image technology stems from their appeal to an innocent voyeurism that is innate in all humans. These predecessors to modern cinematography helped to build interest in notions of film and also set precedent for the growth of film technology and pioneering within the field of film, an aspect that is central to avant-garde.
Luis made a good point comparing interest in the Lumiere films to the middle-American interest in "reality TV" that we see today. I find this assertion completely valid, but I would like to further discuss the implications of it. Considering that the Lumiere films are recordings of routine events that were unaltered by the filmmakers, they are as close to ideal "reality film" as a film could contextually be. Using this comparison of cross-generational interests is one thing, but I think it is possible to assert this interest in the mundane and real to all film. The Real World and other reality TV is not in any way avant-garde because such shows are stuck in this banal method of representing reality that is outdated (possibly pioneered by the Lumiere brothers?) Avant-garde films are far-removed from mainstream cinema, reality TV, and the Lumiere films because they are insistent upon portraying notions of reality in shockingly new ways, thereby pioneering styles and techniques in film.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment