what's the name of this movie?

[c.g._eads]

I personally hate this kind of stuff. Any shot like this is a vanity shot whose sole purpose is to make you aware of the director and not the film. Not my idea of storytelling. Personal opinion of course. I can't believe you'd heard of this film, Zak.

 

[Zak Forsman]

cinema's potential is not limited to "storytelling".

 

[brianluce]

I personally hate this kind of stuff. Any shot like this is a vanity shot whose sole purpose is to make you aware of the director and not the film. Not my idea of storytelling. Personal opinion of course. I can't believe you'd heard of this film, Zak.

This is one of this films you have to know about. I woulda bet 100 bucks Zak knew about it.
I think it's interesting but think a better title would be "An Alternative To Waterboarding"...

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to name it "A Much Crueler Alternative To Waterboarding"... rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

 

[c.g._eads]

cinema's potential is not limited to "storytelling".

thank god. that means I don't have to rationalize why I hate it.


but seriously, 99% of cinema's potential is wrapped in some sort of storytelling mechanism. Most everyone else is trying to be different for different's sake - this piece being no exception. It's a "look at how different I can be" piece. Personally I believe the second you put something up on screen, you're telling a story, no matter how vague your sense of story is. This kind of stuff just fails in my book. My opinion of course.

 

[Zak Forsman]

i'd love to see that percentage drop a bit. i wish more filmmakers had the balls (aka vision) to reject the ‘film as short story’ dictum promoted by hollywood and the top film schools. unless you're saying that because this is a temporal art form, the unfolding of captured time is itself a form of story telling. that's a rather loose definition. i'd like to see the emergence of a more poetic cinema based on observation and interpretation rather than plot. i may be alone in that wish. wouldn't be surprised.

wait, you really believe filmmakers who don't make films in service to a narrative throughline are doing it for the attention? what attention? nobody knows their names!

i don't care how hard Wavelength is to watch, it's pretty obvious that the ideas behind it (as heady as they are) go a little deeper than you are willing to acknowledge.

 

[brianluce]

. i'd like to see the emergence of a more poetic cinema based on observation and interpretation rather than plot. i may be alone in that wish. wouldn't be surprised.

There are still people making movies...I mean "Films" like WAVELENGTH. It's just that most people would rather make and watch the popcorn stuff.

I've seen a fair share of experimental/avant garde cinema, I don't care for it much but the one thing that bugs me is that the people who create it typically sneer at conventional narrative driven movies.

Hey! come to think of it the teaser for *your* movie had some similarity to wavelength. That girl looking out of the freeway. What was that all about? WHOOOSH!!! Over my head. But, for whatever reason, the image is somehow compelling.

 

[Zak Forsman]

the conventional moviemakers are sneering right back at them. everybody's *sneering* at each other; because each of us are on a path guided by our own interests, exposures and life experiences. we are all doing what we think is right. as it should be. i try to be open-minded (Wavelength is a challenge, though!!) about any avenue of filmmaking that seemingly has some level of intelligence behind it. my mentor (who was once a producer for the original charlie's angels) introduced me to a whole new way of seeing film that really woke me up. it re-ignited a passion that had been dulled by the sameness of mainstream pictures and opened up a whole new world of potential. i'm still very much a narrative filmmaker, but "plot" is secondary to principles like being present to the moment, respecting the inherent mystery of the characters, and bringing their conflict into the light where it can be shared with an audience and better understood.

Hey! come to think of it the teaser for *your* movie had some similarity to wavelength. That girl looking out of the freeway. What was that all about? WHOOOSH!!! Over my head. But, for whatever reason, the image is somehow compelling.

yeah, that isn't actually from the movie. it was culled from camera test footage. now that the film is shot, i've taken it down.

all that teaser was attempting to do was illustrate the title "Heart of Now" (a reference to the present moment) by dipping the sound of the traffic and isolating this brief moment where the character's awareness came to the forefront. what, exactly, she had became aware of was a total mystery of course. but it was the action of her attention becoming focused (again, to illustrate the title which slams in immediately following this moment) that was at centerstage, and not whatever she was focusing her attention on. a few people got that. most didn't. and admittedly, it was an afterthought. i had this camera test footage and really wanted to do something with it. anyway, i like to pretend it never existed because now I have the actual film to work with.

 

[c.g._eads]

I'm not saying it's impossible to create a cinematic experience outside the traditional lines of storytelling. I'll actually throw together a montage of images over a song without knowing what it is or why I'm doing it. But I believe there's this line that a lot of "experimental" filmmakers cross where they're just trying to be "out there". I don't have a lot of respect for those people. There was this one filmmaker who would just film twenty minutes of his sh*t sitting in the toilet. That was it. That was his contribution to cinema. Different? Definitely. Deep? Well, I guess you could argue that the lingering image of **** represents the world, which itself is turning into a big piece of sh*t. You could come up with a million other interpretions for its "depth". But the most logical analysis of the film is likely more akin to some idiot trying to shock or agitate people. Is Wavelength the same kind of film? Not exactly. But it's pretty close in my opion. Which is why I have no respect for it. And I don't think there is another level of depth to it. I certainly think you could argue it does. But personally, I'll stick with my analysis that it's different for different's sake.

Cinema is a weird thing, particularly for people like us who want to study it. At first, you're either moved or not moved by a filmed experience. If you're not, you could care less why and how the film was made and move on with your life. But if you are, you want to know everything there is to know about that film - how, where, when, and why it was made. Anybody can argue that something has some sort of deeper meaning. It's pretty much un-debateable since there's no way to get in the filmmaker's head (and even if he's there explaining it, he very well may be lying or changing his mind about his intentions). A good example is Donnie Darko - a movie where it became clear on subsequent director-inspired releases, that Richard Kelly really didn't understand the movie he made or why it affected people. Yeah it was "deep" and "non-traditional" but you lose respect for the piece if you realize it was a complete accident.

The perfect example I have of why I hate experimental cinema (and again - this is mainly because of the kind of people who make it - not because I don't believe that a good filmmaker doesn't have the potential to do something cool in the medium) was a short movie that one of the contestants of "On The Lot" made. It was that Brooklyn girl who went to NYU film school (don't get me started) - and she made a "horror" film about a tree being cut down... from the tree's perspective! The camera looked out on the man cutting her down, whistling and wailing in the wind as the process took place. Except she took it a step further and for some reason it was no longer that tree that was being cut down, but another one. Or something. It was soooo bizarre. Now, this was one of the more experimental films I've seen. And you know what? It absolutely sucked. And I hated the filmmaker afterwards for making it. Hated her (and she was kinda cute too). By trying to be so different, she made something that appeals only to herself and a select few others who figure that if something isn't told traditionally, there must be some deeper meaning to it.

It's why I hate films like Elephant and 2001. At the same time, I do not consider myself a mainstreamist as I love films like The Thin Red Line and Run Lola Run. Go figure.

 

[Zak Forsman]

every genre has its share of hack filmmakers and ego-driven students doing superficial work. it's a poor reason to write off an entire genre. with the right eyes and a developed sensitivity to what's being communicated, there is much to learn and appreciate... but again, only if one is and has been willing to build an intellectual, emotional and/or spiritual foundation and faculty to understand the language and ideas being explored.

Elephant resonated with me on a profound level. 2001 on a philosophical one. Thin Red Line on too many levels to list, and Run Lola Run solely on a visceral one (which I did not find much satisfaction in). I have a reputation for having absolutely no decipherable taste and i think that's because whether a film be mainstream, experimental, trash, gl&b, doc, pre-code, mumblecore, noir, turkish, youtube, skate videos, whatever, i'm usually willing to meet it half way. i've never "hated" anything, but i've certainly been disappointed many times over. usually by filmmakers attempting to mimic the form or content of other filmmakers, or those delving into unearned emotions. 'little miss sunshine' comes to mind.

often, if the initial viewing of a newly discovered work only tells me enough to know that I don't know anything about where this filmmaker is coming from, i'll devour anything i can to educate myself and build up my ability to comprehend what's being communicated... at a minimum. i would have a hard time dismissing something if it was because *I* failed to understand it. especially when I can see the opportunity to know more. but then, i believe an audience should be less passive than is usually expected.

and it should be noted, i'm talking about capable filmmakers here. not hacks. and not students.

 

[HorseFilms]

Michael Snow on Wavelength - "I wanted to make a summation of my nervous system, religious inklings and aesthetic ideas. I was thinking of planning for a time monument in which beauty and sadness of equivalence would be celebrated, thinking of trying to make a definitive statement of pure Film space and time, a balance of 'Unison' and 'Fact', all about seeing. " - From 'Film Is: The International Free Cinema' by Stephen Dwoskin)

If I ever met a dude like that, I'd be forced to punch him in the balls. What a freaking blowhard.