Week 4: Lecture
Bordwell and Thompson state that after watching Rail Road Turnbridge a person “cannot see bridges in the same way” thus experimental films are not just art for arts sake. Can/are Korsakow projects art for arts sake, or can they effect the way people see things? Or like Rail Road Turnbridge are they both at once?
- Korsakow films can absolutely change the way both viewers and creators see things
- Jasmine told an excellent anecdote when she was a child she would pretend to be a time traveller and would imagine seeing the world through new eyes. This gave her a greater appreciation of the world around her – taking the familiar and making it unfamiliar
- Less about what things mean and more about their materiality
- non-narrative documentaries and Korsakow films have the same effect on viewers and utilise different ways to set up patterns
Bordwell and Thompson devote a lot of attention to the formal structure and sequence order to deconstruct films, yet through some i-Docs the individual creates their own unique structure. What other methods can we employ to deconstruct i-Docs, and does this interactive structure take some creative control away from the author/filmmaker?
- Korsakow structure created by the producer – taxonomy of keywords
- You don’t need to necessarily define something to be able to construct it
- Creator = Architect and User = Builder
- Closed reading is not deconstruction
- Katherine Hail: writing should be specific depending on medium
- User decides when the segment is over – takes away some of the creative control
- Designers for providing users with experiences
Do the readings of experimental films rely on the audience that is observing them? And if so to what extent is experimental film an interpretation?
- Relies on interpretation
- All films rely on audience to interpret them – experimental is not specific
- Realist narrative – hides the fact that its pretend
- Linear/fixed – you are in control