Last week I particularly enjoyed Maya Deren's "A Study In Choreography For Camera," because of the rhythm and unity of the music and the images. It was really fascinating watching the dancer's body move and interpret different surroundings with such cohesiveness. Everything was so fluid and well put together; I felt so relaxed. I feel like the movement of the camera and the way the piece was editted together was a sort of dance as well. The interaction between dancer and camera was really captivating. A scene that really caught my attention was the beautiful pirouette scene where he continuously turns and the camera focuses on different parts of his body, starting with the face. I like that the film didn't need to "say" anything to hold my attention. It was just like a beautiful painting of a flower or a dancer. I didn't feel the need to probe in order to "understand" the piece and get a "deeper meaning," It just was.
I had the opposite reaction to Kenneth Anger's "Eaux d’Artifice" It seemed like the beautiful woman and the captavating water sequences were suposed to keep my attention for the duration of the film, but my focus wavered. I whole heartedly agree with what Amy said in class on tuesday: the film seemed geared towards the woman going somewhere, and since she never did, I became frustrated. Yes, the woman and the water and the music were cohesive and beautifully put together, but I just felt like the film was going no where.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment