Pure Cinema film theory discussion...or something.

[Batutta]

You know why humans like the the 3 act structure?...It's the rhythm of sex. Act 1 foreplay, which leads to Act 2 coitus, which leads to Act 3 climax and release.

 

[Mark Harris]

You know why humans like the the 3 act structure?...It's the rhythm of sex. Act 1 foreplay, which leads to Act 2 coitus, which leads to Act 3 climax and release.

What about smoking a cigarette, rolling over and falling asleep?

 

[vcassel]

Is this kind of what you mean?:

1) Act I
2) Act II up to midpoint
3) Act II from midpoint to act III
4) Act III

Exactly. It's observed by so many, but still kept within the imaginings of being a three-act structure. Why not call it for what it really is?

 

[pomoville]

One of my favorite sites, UbuWeb, has an avant garde and experimental film section - http://www.ubu.com/film/

I don't know what kind of arts go on in Chicago, but if you ever see a small theater do a showing of Koyaanisqatsi, GO!

Well, Koyaanisqatsi certainly isn't a film with out a point; it has a very clear (maybe even overbearing) message. That said, it's silly for people to equate experimental film with meaningless test footage just because it doesn't match up with your expectations of what cinema is. That's sort of the whole point of experimental film as a concept (that's what makes them experimental).

 

[pomoville]

Is this kind of what you mean?:

1) Act I
2) Act II up to midpoint
3) Act II from midpoint to act III
4) Act III

Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell are big proponents of this. http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2008/06/21/times-go-by-turns/

 

[vcassel]

Well, Koyaanisqatsi certainly isn't a film with out a point; it has a very clear (maybe even overbearing) message.

I don't know; I've met a lot of people who interpreted the exact opposite of its intended meaning. Many people thought it relayed the efficient mastery human beings exerted over their world. A positive affirmation of chaos to order. Yet others found no meaning whatsoever, a random string of images. The craft of the filmmaker goes into the intention of the film, but the art happens in the perception of the audience. Koyaanisqatsi, though strongly intended, is greatly open to interpretation by virtue of the way it's presented. It's a bit of a litmus test.

 

[TimurCivan]

What about smoking a cigarette, rolling over and falling asleep?

That's the sequel.

 

[pomoville]

Sure, but just because it's open to interpretation doesn't mean it doesn't have a direction. I remember how Roger Ebert commented in his review that the films message was somewhat mediated by the beauty of the images. The opening of the film with the definition of "koyaanisqatsi" is clear enough, though. That said, I'm all for reader response.

 

[Gord.T]

... I remember how Roger Ebert commented in his review that the films message was somewhat mediated by the beauty of the images....

If I can twist and interpret that to my advantage, I agree in the sense that that's why I liked "Moon in the Gutter' in the first place.

I watched it again for the 3rd time in maybe roughly 30 years. It's different now than what I remember. But I remembered it after all these years in part because of Kinski and the way it was filmed. Matter of fact, I still find it interesting. So there! Ha.


//edit: This is a pretty good shot isn't it? Moon in the Gutter? I'm going to watch it again in B&W like I remember seeing it. But, anyways, I don't want to push it on anyone. I'll lay off now. Ha.