St. Louis

Now that I have some hands on experience and a better understanding of what it takes to make a camera less film, I can now appreciate more a film like St. Louis by the Scratch Film Junkies. For starters, I’ve figured out that animating horizontal rather than vertical is so much harder and time consuming, this is mostly because its quicker to turn the film horizontal and just color lines across the film strip rather then make each individual lines horizontally. So I was really impressed with the opening credits of St. Louis, how they came horizontal across the screen. I know that must have taken a really long time. It would be hard for me to have done something like that. That being said, I found it kind of funny that later on in the film they had vertical lines moving back and forth across the screen, which of course this took no time at all. I greatly enjoyed the little bit of live action from the found footage, it worked well to break up the animation and also because I wasn’t excepting it. I should assume that the plain from the found footage was the St. Louis plain and that’s where the name of the film comes from. St. Louis did stay true to form with its Mickey Mouseing with hand drawn arrows. But I can’t bash the arrows too much, it did show me that there are other ways to animate the film beside turn one object into another. That is to make then fatter and skinner, smaller and bigger. I still have one question, who was that guy in the film? It seemed to have highlighted his face and considering that the plain was important, which the film being named after it. I guess that guy must have been too, but I didn’t get reference. Over all, I enjoyed this Scratch Film Junkies film over there last one, it seemed to be more about having and showing interesting images rather then animation that is just Mickey Moused to the disorganized street band music.
So far my experience with camera less film making has been a mixed bag. I greatly enjoyed the muiti-plane animation project and I can’t wait to put it all together. However, Im really really hating the rhythmic editing project, to start off with I do not enjoy editing, second the computer I’m working on the final cut pro like to literally freeze ever ten min and then when im trying to fix final cut pro the computer itself would freeze. I cant not put into words how much this irritates me.

Projections of Sound On Image

This article must have been written by a sound editor, because it seems like he downplays the role and importance of image in some spots. I’ve always been told “don’t tells the audience, show the audience”, which means that in film you use images, first and for most to communicate. Its really easy to say to the audience “she is grief stricken with the sudden death of her husband and wants to commit suicide” but it completely different thing to show her laying lifeless on the bed day after day, watching a par of scissors on her end table. Sound is just a complement, and that a sign of a good film maker is someone who can communicate a complex plot without using sound. This being said, I can see how sound and image can mutual influences each other, that the sound of a watermelon being smashed is nothing without the context of a child being run over by a tank. Ive seen the use of sound to bridge an edit and up until this reading this article was one of only two exclusive uses for sound, the other being the first example with the watermelon.
I never realized the paradox of hearing, it makes since once I think about it but it would have never dawned on me otherwise. Also the face that we hear better than we see, and like the paradox, it never would have dawned on. Hence, I want to rent and watch Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. I want to see if I can freeze the frame to see in face that the door doesn’t not open and its just a closed door cut to an open one. If that’s so, I’m going to kick myself because normally I’m really good at caching stuff like that. If sound can pull a trick like that then I guess I might maybe be wrong about image being everything.
I never thought about highlighting parts of the frame with sound. Like if im outside shooting in a market, which sounds do you use as background, the chatter of people or the blowing whistle of the wind? I guess it would depend on what you were using the shot for. If you wanted to make the protagonist be/look isolated in a crowd you would use the wind, if you wanted to the protagonist to be part of the group then the wind would be lessened. I guess it all a matter of context.

Wells Artical

Im having some trouble understanding the quote by William Moritz, it seems like a good quote in which he is showing his deep understanding of the subject. I’m confused with when he says that “this” represents freedom and “that” represents the police and then when he says “Donald Duck drives a car and mows his lawn just like an average American; he must represent the average irascible American” and say that that’s revelation is interesting as the first one. Is he being sarcastic or is he saying that symbol has deeper meaning than that? Couldn’t Donald Duck represent the average American? This quote wasn’t the only thing that stuck out to me in the article.
It was intriguing to read that the Disney and Warner Brothers have completely different approaches to dialogue in there cartoons. That Disney soundtrack, which Im guessing includes dialogue moves towards the symphonic while Warner Brothers’ soundtrack is cacophonic. I didn’t think you could categorize speech, much less, that Mickey’s high pitch voice had a poetic or operatic quality. I wish this article would have given examples of Disney’s so-called symphonic qualities, because other than Fantasia what proof is there that Disney strives for this?
I find it funny that this article states that experimental animation has a strong relationship to music, while it was Disney and the narrative form that coined the term “Mickey Mouseing” which is when all the characters on the screen move to the rhythm of the music.
This article is peaty clear that experimental and narrative forms are separate, but it doesn’t recognize the opportunities where one can become the other. I am reminded of a found footage film I saw last year called Light Is Calling. It was intentional footage to a 1930 nickelodeon picture. In which a young soldier along with a covered wagon is returning home as his young wife waits for him to return. The film cuts between his movement down the road and his wife impatiently looking for him, at the end they embrace and continue down the road into the sunset. The footage was warped and discolored due to its old degrading condition. A musical score was placed over it of a violin, clearly was not the original score which was most likely a piano and it was projected at a slower speed. These affect: warped discolored condition of the film, the replacement of its original score with a violin and being projected at a slow methodical speed required the view to look deeper at its content, what the artist is saying about life and the past. Its original intent was to serves as part of a narrative, just a sequence of events to move the story forward, but with it current condition and changes to the score and projection rate the same footage becomes an experimental film on life and the past. I guess the biggest difference that allows this footage to be both at different times would be perspective. It is perceivable that the footage in its old warped condition could still work in the narrative but then it would be an ugly warped narrative that I would not like to see.

My experince with cameraless film making

This week blog assignment is to write about our experience with cameraless film making so far. So far? So far I haven’t done much, or much enough to give me any real footing to disuses it or to even have a memory to reflect on this that isn’t contained within a single day during a time span of a few hours. This being said, I will give my thought on today’s in-class work of film possessing. Considering that in this class is the first time Ive touch much less work with actual film I found today to be quite an eye opener. I never would of thought that unexposed film is white, I mean, it makes since once you think about it, that exposed film is black so the opposite of that would be white but to see it is so out of the ordinary. It kind of reminded me of a white snake, the way it drops to the floor and curls up, like a snake. Its kind of funny to think of unexposed film it as a white snake and not exposed black film, also more snakes are black then white.
I could not find any object to place on the unexposed film strip at my apartment, I could think of object I wish I had ay my apartment so I could bring them to put on the film strip but I didn’t have them. So I went out back to the plan beds around my apartment complex and collected sand, wood chips, leafs and grass. All of which left a similar print on the film which was not the ideal outcome. However, the rice was by far the greatest disappointment and it didn’t quite make sense. The rice left hardly any trace on the film print while the oatmeal left a perfect outline on the film. I would have liked to have the rice imprint on the film for my assignment, oh well. I guess the most important thing I learned about film printing is that metal objects leave the best imprints. My beer bottle opener and keys left the best imprints, also I used a few dimes that would make a nice round edge and I think I would like to make a whole strip of altering round edges on the film strip. Regardless, I enjoyed this exercise.