Song of Myself: Caveh Zahedi's Cinema of Self-Exposure. Article by Jason McBride

After reading Jason McBride’s article, Song of Myself: Caveh Zahedi’s Cinema of Self-Exposure, about Zahedis new film I Am A Sex Addict, I have became more intrigued in Zahedis’ way of film making. Zahedi’s films are like a mix of reality TV and documentary, all stemming from his own biography. “Zahedi’s films are largely concerned with his turbulent romantic life and artistic struggles, his fondness for psychedelics, and his penchant for philosophical gab”, which also star himself, his friends and family members (McBride). Zahedi sees life and art not as two separate things but as one thing. To him, life is art and also something that should be captured. What intrigues me is the use of himself in all of these films, and how open he is to filming his own life. It makes me wonder about my own life. Many of the ideas that I’ve had for movies have been taken from my life and I view them as being re-enacted by someone else. I’ve never thought of myself re-enacting them. But Zahedi has this bold attitude that seems to say, this is me, this is my life and this is my story. Not to mention he even gets his own friends and family members to re-enact in his films as well.
This article also made me think more about reality TV and documentaries. Though Zahedi is trying to present us with a reality TV like film, one in which captures everything as it is, but is it ever really real? Is reality TV real, or is it just another re-enactment? It seems to me that it has become more rare to find footage of something happening that does not have any planning behind it. Even on talk shows when they interview actors, they don’t know what is going to be said word for word but they plan out where the conversation is going to go. It doesn’t seem real because real life is usually unplanned. Then it is much more of a shock when something is captured on TV that is not planned. Zahedi’s films try to capture the action as it is happening but unless a camera follows him every waking moment of his life it’s not going to seem real. However even though his films are re-enactments because they are made like reality TV/documentary there is a sense of wonder to them. It’s the same kind of wonder and curiosity most people get from watching reality TV; they want to believe that what they are watching is real even when its not. But maybe that’s ok; maybe it’s the power of believing that shapes us.


Film making today is organized.

Films By Nathaniel Dorsky

The three films by Nathaniel Dorsky were all silent. I think the silence was supposed to help us focus more on the imagery, edits, and film work but I found it distracting. Silence is awkward and sometimes uncomfortable. Having to sit in a dark theater, and watch a film with no sound is very different from the average moviegoer’s experience, where sometimes the sound is so loud it’s deafening. I found it hard to concentrate; my mind seemed to wander endlessly. I would try to bring it back and keep focused on what I was watching but it was difficult. I started to hear more of the sounds around me, someone coughing, someone eating, the humming of the building and the sound of my friends stomach growling. If the point of Dorsky using silence in his films was to create this awkward atmosphere for his viewers, then he accomplished that. Maybe the point was to heighten the awkwardness so much that you were forced to pay attention to the film in front of you. I would have wanted to hear something, maybe even the sound of a projector going. I’m just so used to having sound playing while I watch a film that this seemed foreign to me. Maybe if I do it enough I will learn to appreciate it for what it is.

Wednesday Performance with Aaron Ximm

Aaron Ximm’s performance on Wednesday was very similar to what Glenn Bach did on Tuesday. Aaron played a series of his recordings that he interconnected with other recordings. All of the sounds combined together created this lasting song that was controlled by him. I found that the best possible way for me to really listen to all of the sounds was by closing my eyes. This way my sense of hearing was heightened and I was more in tune with what I was listening to. At times I couldn’t tell the difference between the two recordings he was playing because I heard them as one recording. Each new sound was different and with every new sound my imagination wandered to different places. Each memory differed based on what sound, or sounds, I was listening to. I think that that is Aaron’s goal; he wants his recordings to give the listener a sense of nostalgia. This way, the experience is different for everyone.
I also find it interesting how often we ignore the sounds around us. Aaron seems to capture those everyday sounds that most people would ignore. When talking about his piece Guantanamo Express he says, “I believe that the piece is also musical in ways that derive uniquely from the use of field recordings as a medium. In particular, I believe that there are aspects of arbitrary sounds and soundscapes-sound that until recently was dismissed as “noise” in the derogatory sense-that work on us at something very like the visceral level that traditional musical materials do” (Ximm). Very often what we might think is noise could very well be used in one of our favorite songs. It’s the difference between what society tells us is noise and what is music. We have to allow our ears to be open to all sounds and see the potential for possible music. Aaron is open to and listening to all sounds and therefore sees the potential for music in these sounds. What we define as music is really open-ended however I found his work to be musical.

Journal Reading

The web page Cinema Scope expands the frame on international cinema. This web page offers many articles on upcoming international films. These articles are all on contemporary films, which are primarily independent.
Cinema Scope’s synopsis on Waiting For Sancho talks about the new film based on the biblical story of The Three Kings. The film is an experimental film, based on improvisation of a 30-page outline. This work is exhibited with pictures, a short synopsis and a short clip from the film.
Richard Porton’s review on the film Happy-Go-Lucky discusses how this film seems strained in the synthesis of gags and melodrama. The film seems to only focus on nothing more than everyday life and “is more of an idealized sketch of a Free Spirit than a believable human being” (Porton). The film portrays Poppy as an upbeat, free spirit who strives to look on the bright side of things.
The website seems to review more experimental films unlike the popular films of Hollywood. The site allows you to browse through their many articles some on films, some on art features and others on interviews with artists and directors. The website gives you an insight on more unique, less popular films.

Field Report, Part Two: Act/React Exhibit

The Act/React exhibit forces the viewer to interact with the installations, allowing the visitor to choose the path they take through it. My favorite installation was the talking table. In this installation, the viewer enters a dark room with one spotlight that is being displayed on a wooden table. As the viewer walks to the table, and steps into the light, it triggers different recordings to go off. Some are from old movies, a knife scraping, or the artist talking. I was lucky enough at one point to have the whole room to myself, therefore allowing me to experiment more with the work of art. I lay on the table, and I moved my hands all across the table triggering all of the recordings. At one point I became intrigued by one of the recordings of the artist speaking but the numerous other recordings being played at the same time were drowning it out. So I stopped, and stepped back and waited for all the recordings to stop, then I experimented and figured out where I needed to stand, or place my hand so that I could listen to that one recording.
The second installation that I found interesting was Deep Walls, which included numerous screens all showing recorded, shadowed images of people. A person would walk by, and they would be recorded and then one of the screens would re-play their actions over and over again. If the person decided to get involved, they might do many different actions so that all of the screens would be replaying their actions. I found this installation similar to Frank Gillette and Ira Schneider’s Wipe Cycle “which mixes television broadcasts, video recently recorded by camera’s in the gallery, and a live video feed in a constantly shifting collage on nine monitors” (Fifield). Wipe Cycle can be disconcerting when you’re not sure if you’re viewing yourself now or a few minutes earlier. I think that it can be hard to watch yourself on video, even if it’s only your shadow. I felt less likely to do something for the camera because I didn’t feel like I wanted to watch myself over and over again. I realize that for some people, this installation allowed them to be goofy and put themselves out there just so they could watch themselves over and over again.
These two installations were similar in that they required some involvement. Although the “interactive artists may cede some control, it is they who create the world, the rules, and the aesthetic environment that the viewers/users must navigate in order to define their experience”(Fifield). This experience was defined by how much involvement you had with the installations. With some of the other installations, you could just stand there and let the art react around you but with both the talking table and deep walls, the viewer had to either walk up to the table, put their hand on the table or walk past the screen. The deep walls seemed to be more personal; you became the art whereas with the talking table you were exploring the art, trying to figure out how it worked. I think that the deep walls exhibit is more interesting when you have many people interacting with it whereas with the talking table I found it more intriguing when I was the only one in the room, like the table was talking to me and only me. But when other people entered the room, it became more awkward. I think people are less likely to lie on the table when there is an audience.

Field Report, Part One: Art Encounters

When I first viewed the films presented by Ross Nugent and then went and saw Robert Schaller’s collection of films I found it hard to find a certain aspect of them in which to talk about. But after thinking about them more, and possibly being more open-minded, I realized that there was a lot of symbolism being used. Though I may be used to the more narrative, Hollywood films use of symbolism, I know enough about it to find it elsewhere.

The symbolic use of red in Andrea Leutenekers’ film The Bear Garden emphasizes the blood, and pain that the bear goes through in the garden. With the use of sound, and manipulation of film with red liquid, the audience is able to create their own image of what is happening without it being visually shown to them. The red can also symbolize death, which was true for some of the bears but it was also true for the thousands of Jews who were killed in concentration camps. The voices of Andrea’s Jewish parents explaining what they can remember from the concentration camps can be heard throughout the film. In a way, The Bear Garden is symbolic for the Jewish Concentration camps. The bear is not that different from the prisoners who were confined in a small place, who were studied, mocked, and abused. Andrea uses multiple clips and sounds to tell the two stories of the bear and her parents.

Like Andrea Leuteneker, I found that Robert Schaller also used symbolism in his films. Robert showed some films that included dance. When I think of dancing I think of freedom, freedom to do anything, be anyone or the freedom from the chaos of everyday life. One film in particular was shown using three projectors. On each projector there was a film being played of a woman dancing. If one film is playing manipulated film, the other two might be clear footage of the woman dancing. When I viewed it, I perceived it as that the woman was almost escaping from one film to the other. When the right film was showing the manipulative, chaotic and unpredictable film I saw it as life and how it can be very chaotic. But the woman’s dancing helps her escape from the chaotic life and we continue to see her dance in the middle and left film. If the left film of her dancing suddenly turns to manipulative footage, she moves to the middle and right films. By having three different films playing at the same time, each one with it’s own story per se, I viewed it as one film telling one story. In addition, the dancer is also wearing white, which symbolizes innocence. When I think of innocence I think of children who don’t seem to have a care in the world. It’s as if they are free from the realities of life, similar to the freeness of the woman’s dancing.

Although it was hard for me to understand most of the films presented by Ross Nugent and shown by Robert Schaller, I soon took what I did understand and related to the films, making up my own story.