Bow down to the Scratch Film Junkies

There’s a tendency, after watching experimental films, or viewing a modern art exhibit to say, “That’s not art, a kindergartener could do that.” Even though I’m ashamed to admit it, I’ve said that before even after watching films by Brakhage (gasps!).

Knowing what I know now, after completing the “elements” project, I have so much more respect for the art of manipulating film. Nothing I did on the project came out as I thought it would. I tried to make a plan for scratching and painting, but when it came to actually manipulating the film my plans seemed to fly out the window. There’s so much to think about, but all I could manage was to wonder how the colors were going to show up when projected.

When we watched the Scratch Film Junkies last class, I was able to follow along with some of the techniques they used. Which was fun, because the first couple weeks of class I was pretty baffled at how they did anything. Five weeks later, I'm still baffled at their work, but now it's because of how organized their films are. It takes so much more work than I could have ever thought to make a film as cool as one by the Scratch Film Junkies. I had enough trouble getting results that were predictable, I can't even imagine trying to add sound to the film, or even creating it according a sound track.

I guess what I'd like to see now, to further understand the process, would maybe be a storyboard of one of their films. Or see how they plan the whole thing out, that must be crazy detailed.

I could also be wrong in my musings about controlling the process, they may just be painting haphazardly, but I doubt it.

No more Chion, please... ever.

If I never read another thing by that damned Michel Chion, I will be a very happy person. I’ve written two research papers on sound before and let me tell you what, filmy people must think Chion has Jesus’ ears. He’s referred to in almost every text on sound and I don’t understand why.

My main issue with Chion is that he can’t write about sound in a way I gain information from his texts. If learning wasn’t important in my approach to reading his articles, I’d at least want to be able to relate to what he’s writing, but I simply cannot. He is awesome for referring to when you need a little tidbit of flowery language about sound to quote for research papers though.

In this article, “Projections of Sound on Image” (for that matter, in everything else he writes), Chion tells us that adding sound, be that music, dialogue, or sound effects, to an image can drastically change the meaning. Who knew? I’m fairly certain in my assumption that as film scholars, we understand that sound is one of the most pivotal elements in cinema. I think Chion's issue is that the average movie go-er doesn't completely realize how much sound can change an image. The average movie go-er has probably also never edited raw footage, before all the fantastic elements of sound were added. The public doesn't seek out the opportunity to witness these differences. So, Mr. Chion, just calm down, us filmmakers and scholars know sound is important.

Also, Mr. Chion, the sad thing is, I completely agree with your sentiments about sound, but the fact that I had to eat 3 popsicles while reading this article to stay interested is not OK.

Don't Lie Mr. Wells we know you had Mickey Mouse sheets when you were a little boy.

Wells never outwardly said that the orthodox style of cel animation is bad, but his tone sure did. I thought his comparison between experimental animation and orthodox animation was accurate, like that chart he made, yes that was good, and easy to read. Yes, traditional animation is narrative, easy to understand, and completely easy to watch. I gathered from this reading that Wells thinks this a sophomoric way to animate.

I grew up watching Disney films and cartoons. I love them. I can remember watching the Little Mermaid, Robin Hood, and 101 Dalmatians over and over again if I was home from school sick. In fact, I own two VCRs just so I can still watch my Disney VHS tapes either in the living room or my bedroom. For as much as Wells seems to poo-poo classic cartoons, they sure are popular.

As a very amateur animator myself, I think I can offer a unique perspective. I don’t animate like the orthodox Disney model. I’m not even sure what you’d call my style of animation, but it sure doesn’t scream Donald Duck. I don’t think Wells would go so far as to call experimental either. I like alternative forms of animation and that’s also how I like to animate. I like watching Robot Chicken late at night, but every now and then it’s fun to watch Fantasia too. Thinking outside of the box when trying to animate is something that is really fun, like using a scanner, or still photography.

I feel Wells’ frustration with the lack of mainstream experimental animation. But honestly, I don’t think there is a market for it outside of the film festival/art community circuit. Which is sad, because there are some awesome animated films that never get the fame they deserve. What I gathered from Wells’ “Theory on Animation” was almost like every other article I’ve read that compares a classic model for cinema versus the cinema of the filmmakers who try to stick it to the man.

Yes I will let my children watch Disney cartoons, but I will also throw in a little Harry Smith, just to blow their minds a little bit.

Making movies, free ballin' style.

I really like the idea of making short films and never using a camera. It makes me feel empowered as a motion-camera-less filmmaker. Of the techniques we’ve learned so far painting on film and making magazine transfers sparked my interest the most.

I think it’s cool that some artists are able to control and plan out their ideas more fully when it comes to this type of filmmaking. For me, I’ve been having a hard time trying to plan ahead, while not over-thinking the process. I understand that a part of this medium is the randomness and the anything goes attitude, but I’d like to have fully developed thoughts portrayed in what I make. This feeling of disorganization is probably due to the fact that I still don’t completely understand the medium. I’m still learning what happens when I do _________ to __________. On the flip side, even if I do create a well-organized plan of action, and fuck it up, there’s a good chance that it might still end up looking cool.

I do find one issue with this style of filmmaking, which is how to make it applicable across other genres of film. It’s all well and good to make a film entirely of scratched or painted film, like the Scratch Film Junkies. I think it’d be awesome to incorporate some of the techniques we’ve learned so far in mainstream, or I suppose popular, filmmaking. Maybe, since today everything is going digital, people forget that returning to basic modes of production can also be as innovative as the digital alternative. I know that it’s hard for some people to sit and watch an entire experimental/avant-garde film, but if it were incorporated in such a way as to not be distracting, or maybe just a minute aspect of the film, then people wouldn’t mind.

I’ve seen a couple films recently that have used title cards to break up the film, for example (500) Days of Summer and Amores Perros. Title cards could be a way to slip in a little ditty of scratched or painted film. For that matter, why don't awesome music videos directors use non-traditional techniques. Music videos are a really fun genre of film that everyone forgets to call a genre of film. Now that I'm thinking about it, I don't think I've seen a music video that incorporates any of the techniques we've discussed in 6x1. Not including stop-motion animation or cell animation. That's a little annoying, especially because I like music videos and look up to music video directors like Marc Webb, Michel Gondry, and the Mixtape Club.

It's my new creative goal to make a music video, with permission or no, incorporating at for at least 75% of the time some combination of techniques we learn this semester in 6x1. I can't say when this goal will be reached, but it will.

I'm looking forward to seeing everyone's completed Elements project, they're going to be awesome. I wish I could think of a super-stellar way to re-interpret the elements. Because everyone knows water isn't really blue, but it is always shown as blue, in fact, I think my partner and I were planning on using blue tones for our water section. The only place water looks blue is from space. So if we were going to space to project our films then blue water might be OK. That or if we were in the Caribbean, because sometimes water looks blue there. Fire is always represented at red or orange or yellow. But screw that, what if fire was blue (because really really hot fire is blue to the max), and we showed polluted red water. I want to think outside of the box!

If you think you have synesthesia, you're more likely just a hypochondriac

A friend of my family's, who works with autistic children, once told me, "We're all somewhere on the spectrum."

That's all I could think I about while reading the Wikipedia article on synesthesia. I thought certain aspects of the condition would be a burden. For example the gustatory synesthesia would be terrible! To have phantom tastes in your mouth whenever you think about something. What if every time you thought about pie, you'd taste spoiled milk? That'd be horrible. Or if you were married to someone with a name that conjured and association with cat pee.

Most of the others, the visual, musical, and numerical forms seemed really fun. Then I began thinking that I might be a synethete. Hah! So I googled a test for it. Most of the tests just seemed fake, then a couple I came across seemed to tell you a little something about the way your brain worked. But I can't count the results accurate, because I was anticipating the brain test. Not that I was willing myself to hear/see things, but maybe the results would be skewed because I was actively looking or thinking about synesthesia. Here are the links to the tests I took:

perceptual test

auditory test

While the results may be flawed, it's still fun to think of yourself as possibly extra-perceptive.