Yesterday in the Media 1 lectorial, we examined Daniel Askill’s film We Have Decided Not To Die. I personally found the film frustrating to watch. In film (and art in general) I prefer a clearer representation of events and ideas. In my mind, film is a medium of communication; if the film does not communicate effectively then I struggle to appreciate it in the way that some others do. I do however understand the attraction to the ‘film as art’ idea, in that it is supposed to make you think, question, and decide your own meanings and interpretation of the text. I just struggle to engage with it myself.

Askill’s film does have some narrative and non-narrative elements, so it is particularly difficult to put into one of the two categories. Some people see the correlation between the titles, the parallel nature of the three events and the distinct three acts as enough to put it in the narrative section, which is completely justifiable. Others see it as a collection of beautiful cinematography with no real meaning or story. I see both sides objectively, and feel that I am obligated to conclude that the film does have a narrative.

This does not mean I enjoyed or understood the film, or think that the narrative is effective. I think that an effective narrative should include the three points that Dan explored in the lecture (character development, plot, and resolution), which I found to be lacking in Askill’s film. Maybe that’s just me being closed minded.