Koy-aan-i-sqat-si

I had no idea what to expect from this film when it began. At the very beginning it looked kind of like a DVD version of a Iron Maiden concert, what with the red block letters against the black background and the low, ominous tones that seemed to foreshadow some kind of chaos to come. Though the chaos was not heavy metal, it did come. The nature scenes that followed the immediate beginning (of the debris falling business that is repeated at the end) were overwhelming in their beauty and scope. I couldn't believe how excited I was to be seeing them...from the majestic towers of red rock in Utah to the rolling clouds that looked like flowing water, WOW. I'm pretty sure I could have taken 86 minutes of just that. Part of the reason I liked this film so much was personal and has to with connections I feel to the desert, the ocean and the moon as well as my love for New York, despite the fact that many of the scenes filmed there had a negative, over-crowded-yet-empty, broken angle. I don't agree with the idea that this film is about one straightforward concept. I don't think it's too long for its content. Especially after reading MacDonald's interview with Reggio, it is clear that this film comes from a completely new and different angle and is concerned with the state of the modern world. It looks to and calls for change in a way we had not encountered. I think it's important to look to the title. I don't think the Hopi word "Koyaanisqatsi" can be justly translated into English, that's why there's several different definitions that apply to it including: 1) crazy life 2) life in turmoil 3) life disintegrating 4) life out of balance and 5) a state of life that calls for another way of living. None of these are the same idea. The only thing that really remains constant is "life" as well as some sort of movement or change. You can't watch Koyaaniqatsi all the way through and say: 'Reggio is saying that life is out of balance. Man now values technology over nature.' Yes, he is saying that, but that's not the end of it. This film has a social agenda and an artistic one. More importantly, it has a personal agenda. It IS Reggio's personal struggle for social justice but it is also meant to be a visual feeding ground for the viewer. We are supposed to watch this film and make what we will of it. It is supposed to inspire us, make us aware, overwhelm us, whatever. Reggio stressed that its meaning was totally subjective. Personally, I don't think it's anti-technology or urbanization. I think it's kind of defeatist in the sense that it acknowledges that our world has been consumed by modernization and technology--that part is irreversible--the question now is what to do with that. How can we reconcile the images of nature with the realities within cities? I think it's a crucial question in the world we live in. I think Reggio was brilliant to turn to the film medium to convey his ideas. I still have the chant stuck in my head.