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.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)