Excellent! is this one different than the one screened at the Cable car? i hope you’re real proud of this film; it’s an achievement. I can appreciate it more since actually reading anti-oedipus, which cites Artuad on almost every page. The script which once baffled me is becoming to come into the discourse in my mind, becoming integrated into what i’m thinking about.
hey jed, thanks. it’s not really any different from the cable car version, except I added some credits. to be honest, I’m not sure how I feel about the film anymore. the more I watch it, the more it seems to be too forced. I find the parts towards the end, which are more loquacious, and with Adam’s delivery faltering at times, the most interesting. I think some of the pauses work very well, and some of the edits are just a bit off, and screw up the rhythm. The problem is that I edited it on purpose, and to me at least it seems now too purposeful, too planned. Perhaps the delivery I like so much at the end wouldn’t work as well if that weren’t the case. On the other hand, I could see it working even better if there was a little more chaos throughout the piece. What do you think? I think mostly it’s a rhythm problem.
Sturg (digitial nickname!), you pretty well summarized what I’d been thinking about the movie. I liked some parts better than others and I didn’t know why. I think you’re right; it is a matter of the rhythm. I love the beginning, and I really like the editing in the ’surety/sureness’ part. I think you could do a lot more of that.
What do you mean in saying you edited it on purpose? Would the surety part be the example of the most purposive editing? If so, I think you could use more purposiveness. Ideally, I think this film would mesh chaos and ‘good delivery.’ I like the ending too, and it’s important to have that sort of moment of conclusiveness. If you’re still going to put work into the film – and I don’t know if you are – I’m going to keep saying what I said before, that you should edit with some principles in mind (I’m sure you do this already, but you should do it as consciously as you can), i.e. intermingled chaos and purpose/conclusivity. The simple fact that you purposively weave those things together would not take away from the chaos that you engender, if it’s chaos that you’re going for in certain places. Be a Bergsonian about it: intuition should be the method, but intelligence (arrangement, forethought) should oversee that method.
Sorry if this sounded like a bunch of injunctions. Unfortunately, I don’t really know how to think any other way…
Excellent! is this one different than the one screened at the Cable car? i hope you’re real proud of this film; it’s an achievement. I can appreciate it more since actually reading anti-oedipus, which cites Artuad on almost every page. The script which once baffled me is becoming to come into the discourse in my mind, becoming integrated into what i’m thinking about.
are you in maine?
June 13th, 2007 | #
hey jed, thanks. it’s not really any different from the cable car version, except I added some credits. to be honest, I’m not sure how I feel about the film anymore. the more I watch it, the more it seems to be too forced. I find the parts towards the end, which are more loquacious, and with Adam’s delivery faltering at times, the most interesting. I think some of the pauses work very well, and some of the edits are just a bit off, and screw up the rhythm. The problem is that I edited it on purpose, and to me at least it seems now too purposeful, too planned. Perhaps the delivery I like so much at the end wouldn’t work as well if that weren’t the case. On the other hand, I could see it working even better if there was a little more chaos throughout the piece. What do you think? I think mostly it’s a rhythm problem.
June 14th, 2007 | #
Sturg (digitial nickname!), you pretty well summarized what I’d been thinking about the movie. I liked some parts better than others and I didn’t know why. I think you’re right; it is a matter of the rhythm. I love the beginning, and I really like the editing in the ’surety/sureness’ part. I think you could do a lot more of that.
What do you mean in saying you edited it on purpose? Would the surety part be the example of the most purposive editing? If so, I think you could use more purposiveness. Ideally, I think this film would mesh chaos and ‘good delivery.’ I like the ending too, and it’s important to have that sort of moment of conclusiveness. If you’re still going to put work into the film – and I don’t know if you are – I’m going to keep saying what I said before, that you should edit with some principles in mind (I’m sure you do this already, but you should do it as consciously as you can), i.e. intermingled chaos and purpose/conclusivity. The simple fact that you purposively weave those things together would not take away from the chaos that you engender, if it’s chaos that you’re going for in certain places. Be a Bergsonian about it: intuition should be the method, but intelligence (arrangement, forethought) should oversee that method.
Sorry if this sounded like a bunch of injunctions. Unfortunately, I don’t really know how to think any other way…
June 15th, 2007 | #