Author Archives: hoakland@uoregon.edu

Koyaanisqati: Essential to Understanding Technology’s Domination of Humanity

Posted on by
17

Koyaanisqatsi. 1982. Coppola. Reggio.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085809/?ref_=nv_sr_3

If you don’t know how enmeshed technology has become in human existence and culture, then you probably haven’t been alive in the past hundred years. Even if you live in the middle of the Jungle, you can find an episode of Seinfeld being played. In the poorest cities of the poorest nations, the constant endeavor is for ever increasing levels of technology. Whoever has the tractor dominates those who plow with their hands. Whoever has a gun dominates those with only their fists…

 

If somehow you still haven’t realized this, or you just need a little reminder, watch Koyaanisqatsi. Even though it was made in the early 80s, this film produced by Francis Ford Coppola and directed by George Reggio is timeless in seeking to “wake up” humanity to what its really getting into by incorporating technology into all aspects of our lives, which it greatly achieves by the end of your 86 minute journey.

 

Koyaanisqatsi (Reggio) is a film made in 1982 in the form of Soviet-Montage editing, which allows that it not only evokes the emotional agitation inherent it this editing style, but also effectively conveys the chaos that has come with the introduction of technology to the human culture and the non-human environment.

 

Similarly, the comparison between Koyaanisqatsi and Soviet Montage editing is congruent with the comparison-type editing between seemingly unrelated things. For example, the consistent comparisons between technology’s domination of the environment rendering the environment as a technological organism, much like what has become of humanity throughout the film.

 

Ultimately, if you want or need a reminder of how enmeshed we all are in technology, and technology is in us (not only in our individuals, but our communities and entire societies). Koyaanisqatsi does an incredibly effective job of opening the viewers eyes to these issues, which places it in a combination between Soviet-Montage-style editing, city symphonies (in the form of “technological-city transformation” cities), and the documentary style of opening the viewers mind to something we might not normally acknowledge. You must see this movie if you the essential comprehension technology’s domination of humanity and nature.

 

Film on the Edge: Sympathizing with the Unsympathetic

Posted on by
20

In the 1960s European films Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960) and 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963), the viewer is asked to sympathize with characters that are fundamentally sociopathic (a personality lacking moral responsibility or social conscience1), yet the evocation of this sympathy by the viewer is expressed in different stages of the films’ narratives.

Peeping Tom immediately introduces the viewer to a character that is questionable and asocial. The opening scene of the film displays the main character Mark filming his trickery and murder of a prostitute. An audience in 1960 England would without a doubt react to this with a feeling of hatred and scorn. However, throughout the movie, Mark is re-humanized by unveiling his psychology and motives. Towards the end of the film, Mark discusses Scopophilia with a psychiatrist, which is the pleasure of looking and objectifying. Tangentially, it is slowly revealed through his friendship with the character Helen that his father, who used fear to study his psychology, emotionally abused him from a young age. Perhaps this abuse induced the need to both repress his desires to visualize fear in becoming anti-social, as well as to project his fear onto others through inducing and filming their fear. Mark is therefore humanized through the use of familiar psychology, which requires the viewer to feel sympathy for this man who is characterized by the most psycho- and sociopathic behavior, and causes varying degrees of discomfort.

A similar discomfort comes in the viewer’s decision to sympathize or not in the Italian film 8 ½. Although the viewer’s perspective on Guido (8 ½’s main character) is very different than on Mark of Peeping Tom, Guido’s sociopathic behavior of narcissism makes him difficult to sympathize with. However, the difference between the films comes in the fact that the viewer is not initially as starkly judgmental of Guido and is introduced to his psychological situation from the start of the film (by starting with his dream of being trapped and suffocated). The viewer feels sympathy during his various flashbacks and dreams that employ the theories of the symbolic, where the child learns to repress desire from symbology, such as the by the church in 8 ½. Similarly, Guido attempts to balance his Id and Superego, psychoanalytical idioms for subconscious desires and the internalization of moral codes, respectively. Guido seems to increasingly lack a strong ego, which mediates the two above, in his allowance of the id to dominate over the superego. Throughout the film, his sociopathic view towards, treatment of, and relationships with others make it increasingly hard to sympathize with his character.

Both films were on the forefront of introducing film viewers to the psychology of characters, rather than just their entertainment value, which was a valuable introduction to the art of film in the mid twentieth century. The two films, Peeping Tom and 8 ½, create a sense of discomfort in the viewers because of the poignant ability the respective films have to evoke sympathy in the dark-minded, sociopathic leading men.

1. sociopathy. Dictionary.com. Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopathy (accessed: May 09, 2014).

‘Visualized Justice’: Matheson’s vision for film

Posted on by
5

On Thursday April 24, 2014, Kelly Matheson visited Eugene’s Cinema Pacific Festival through the law school to discuss the way that film can be used for justice in human rights.

Matheson works for “Witness,” a human-rights advocacy organization in NY city working to promote visual media as advocacy for human rights and as evidence against human rights abuses.

Four case studies were used to portray the significance that film and media have played in creating either awareness about or evidence against human rights abuses. The first was the 1982 Guatemalan revolution, where a filmmographer went to the country to film the experiences of the indigenous communities being attacked by the government’s military. This ultimately became a documentary called When the Mountains Tremble, but the great significance of the film was in the interview the filmmographer had with Mont, the dictator of Guatemala at the time. The prosecutor in the case against Mont saw the documentary and ultimately was able to use his interview, where he admitted to controlling the military and all of its actions, to convict Mont of crimes against humanity and genocide in 2013. The other case studies were similar in showing how effective film can be in evidence of the law and rights being broken.

This aspect of film falls into the genre of advocacy documentary. The form of the films are highly variable, but the ‘narratives’ of the documentaries portraying injustice are all fairly similar in the sense that they are revealing testimonials.

An interesting part of the talk was in the question and answer session when Matheson discussed the logistics of the cinematography and editing of these justice films. She noted that if these films are to be used, it is important that they have certain elements, such as showing causal action and displaying the entirety of an event. Similarly, in the editing, it is necessary to have a date  and time as well as have a viable source of tracking the film from the act of taking it to the process of getting it to the court room (to ensure it is neither tampered with nor somehow falsified).

Overall, Matheson’s talk gave me a very interesting perspective of the use of film not only as entertainment and art, but as justice and regaining power to the victims of atrocities.

Kelly Matheson has a TedX talk that is not exactly the same, but similar to the one she gave at Cinema Pacific, if anyone is interested:

Emotion in Man With a Movie Camera

Posted on by
4

The effectiveness of Man With a Movie Camera (1929), above the other films watched thus far, and above most films created in general, is the ability it has to invoke an authentic emotion in the viewer.

The cinematography is the initial aspect of the movie that is incredibly unique. Sergei Eisenstein in the Soviet Union originally theorized the Soviet Montage form of the expressionist (Avant Garde) film genre in the early 1920s, culminating in his movie Battleship Potempkin in 1925. Vertov’s (Man With a Movie Camera’s director) was influenced not only by this experimental art form of his surrounding society, but also of the emerging genre of documentaries in the early 20s, particularly those of “city symphonies,” such as Manhatta (1921) and Berlin (1927). (Platt, 04/07/14 and 04/09/14).

The history of the Soviet Union at the time reflected the Bolshevik revolution into the overtake of the government by the Lenin administration. The 1920s was determined the ‘Golden Age of Soviet Cinema,’ which was evident in Lenin’s decree of using cinema to disseminate communism propaganda. The potent aspect of Man With a Movie Camera is the fact that not only does Vertov show the reality of Modernism coming into play in the Soviet Union, but he also shows the emotion of the people behind that transition.

In the mise-en-scene, cinematography and editing aspects of form in the film, the city (which is actually two cities, but can be assumed to well-represent Moscow at the time) is portrayed as working well in the transition to modernity (industrialism), because there is neither destruction nor sadness portrayed. But what is effectively portrayed is the intensity of the transition through the fast shots of cinematography and the portrayal of the individuals of mise-en-scene. The cinematography is fast shots throughout the movie. A general feeling of anxiety is conveyed through this technique, which is one of the more effective ways in which this film exudes the emotion of the city at the time. Another aspect is the mise-en-scene, which is the layout of the scenes. This aspect of film form was a compelling way to show the contrast between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat at the time in the Soviet Union. The bourgeoisie were portrayed as relaxed, with almost a glowing characteristic to their costume and lighting in the film. In the actions of the scene, they were shot with medium shots displaying them getting made up or combing their hair, which conveys an emotion of relaxation. In a powerful contrast, the proletariat were shown in scenes of intensity, often with either close-up or high-angle, long shots showing them either working as fast as they can, with no emotion; or, in the latter shots, attempting to get something done (such as crossing the street to get somewhere immediate), but in an anxiety-provoking manner. This is incredibly effective by Vertov in showing the difference in emotion between classes of the Soviet Union at the time.

In this way, the technology of the modern age at the time is portrayed as almost something that is almost becoming a feeling organism of its own, but somewhere in between the two contrasting classes. The constant shots and scenes of rail cars seemingly about to crash but barely missing each other and the pedestrians and automobiles around convey a feeling of anxiety as well. However, the rail cars placement in the scene (mise-en-scene), as somewhat of a barrier that is necessary, but overwhelming to cross, conveys the hectic nature of the split in society at the time.

A last feature of note in the emotion of the film is in Vertov’s portrayal of himself. He is the “Man With a Movie Camera,” who is almost portrayed as the playful, yet serious figure who is attempting to show the pitfalls of the society attempting to modernize. He is portrayed as not so much in the background of society, though not attempting to be in the foreground. He is perhaps in that barrier described through the symbol of the rail car. He gives his point of view from the barrier, rather than from the bourgeoisies or the proletariats. This stance gives him power in the, what could arguably be a slight narrative in this identified experimental, Avant Garde, and “city symphony” film, which allows him to convey what he believed in (communism), but also gave him an omniscience and objectivity in conveying the emotions and prospectives of life in ‘modernity’ in the 1920s Soviet Union.