Each spring, the Cinema Pacific Film Festival hosts a special event called the Adrenaline Film Project (AFP). Working in teams, students and local filmmakers are given just seventy-two hours to write, shoot, and edit a short film from start to finish. During this intensive film production workshop, visiting industry professionals (such as Jeff Wadlow, Leigh Kilton-Smith, and Omar Naim) monitor the participants over the three-day extravaganza.

At the end of last month, I had the opportunity to attend the final screening of the 2014 Adrenaline Film Project. Every year, Cinema Pacific chooses a region (or two) around the world as the focus of the festival. Required props for AFP are connected in some way to the specific region, as well as the required line of dialogue that each team must incorporate. This year, AFP focused on Taiwan and Chile. For the Taiwanese prop, each team was required to incorporate a red teapot into each of their films. The Chilean line of dialogue was “So, you think you’re death?” meaning, “you think you’re all that.”

Within the twelve films produced by teams of three participants, each of the following genres was represented (assigned randomly to each team): workplace comedy, dark comedy, B-movie, coming of age, horror, drama, noir, revenge, psychological thriller, sci-fi, heist, and romantic comedy.

After each film was shown, the audience voted for their favorite film. I appreciated the creativity of the voting process, as you actually use the program handed to you upon entrance as your ballot. The winner of the Audience Award was the dark comedy, “Kill for Her” directed by Will Cuddy, Zachary Feiner, and Tommy Pittenger.

Other awards given throughout the night were the Mentor Award and the Best Actor Award. The mentor award is awarded by the mentors, of course, and was given to the revenge film, “Get Your Fill” by Elijah Sprints, Colin Zeal, and Talon Isak Sherer. The Best Actor Award went to Kim Fairbairn from the psychological thriller, “Bottom Line.”

The last award, The Ben Kalb Jury Award, is given to the team who demonstrates the strongest overall production and the most faithful and accurate execution of their assigned genre. Every year, the awarding of this prize honors the contributions of Ben Kalb, whose generous sponsorship makes the UO AFP possible. During this screening, Ben Kalb was in attendance and gave a speech, announcing that he plans on donating his financial support for at least five more years. The winner of the Ben Kalb Jury Award was the heist film, “Taking Tibet” by Derek Brown, Jacob Salzberg, and Noah Phillips-Edwards.

I first heard about AFP in the same room where our class now meets, Mackenzie 214, during an English 260 course that I took in my freshman year. I was able to pull a few friends together to participate in both the 2012 and 2013 projects. This grueling, challenging, and satisfying endeavor has taught me that the final product on the big screen is only a small portion of the entire production. Sadly, they created new rule where you can only participate two years overall, but I definitely plan on attending the screening next year as well!

In the film Perfumed Nightmare we follow the journey of a young man that is from the Philippines and his journey outside of his homeland. Kidlat travels to Paris where he gets to experience life in a progressive city. This film was very interesting to watch but it was a little unclear as to why it was a Third Cinema. A scene that stood out to me the most was the ending scene that played right before the credits. The end scene where Kidlat takes off in that spaceship like structure thing can be interpreted in many different ways. In class we discussed about it representing Kidlat not being satisfied with his home country but also not being satisfied with the new world he has encountered. This scene is important because we see the main character make the realization that his home town and the more enhanced country are not satisfying. His home country doesn’t have the technology or modern day machinery that helps everyday life. He wants to enhance his town and make it a better place by giving them things that other countries already have. For example, Kidlat mentions to the people of his town that he would make it rich in America so he could get his town a stop light for the bridge. This shows that the underdevelopment happening in third world countries is frustrating to him. Once Kidlat arrives in Paris he realizes that Paris is very developed and is growing bigger every day. With these huge developments and coming up all over the city he notices there are few actual venders that are original and independent. The giant super market that is being built is causing all the street venders to run out of business and this upsets Kidlat. Seeing the people losing their jobs to these giant corporations frustrates Kidlat and makes him curse the cities that are being over ruled by the places like the super market. Kidlat taking off in the ship thing is him no longer being happy with what is happening in the world. I think that Kidlat had higher expectations for how things were outside of the Philippines but once he saw how industrialization had some downfalls for locals than he realized that he no longer belonged there. Perfumed Nightmare had many scenes that we could interpret but that ending scene was one that stood out to me an made me wonder why this movie was made and its goal.

Last week I attended the question and answer session with screenwriter, producer and director, Matt Piedmont.   I was disappointed in the quality of the interview. It was difficult to hear the questions and responses. The questions I could hear that Matt answered were vague. He discussed mostly his personal opinions on random issues; the interview was lacking cohesiveness or theme.  That being said I went into the session with little knowledge about Matt so I did leave the Q&A feeling like I had gained some insight into his career and better yet him as a person.

Matt was asked at one point where he found his inspiration. He responded with a funny story about being in Powell’s bookstore in Portland with a friend. While in the bookstore they had an inside joke that later turned into a short film series.  Although, this may seem like a sort of basic, nothing profound kind of response, I thought that it was genuine and authentic. Ideas are born from anywhere anything, which in a cheesy way was sort of inspiring. It had an “anyone can do it,” spin to it. That kind of story is encouraging, especially for someone like me who is right at the brink of starting a whole new chapter in their lives.  It’s comforting to know that the simplest of thoughts can lead somewhere.

Matt also discussed how as an undergrad at the University of Washington, he witnessed his peers in suit and ties attending career fairs. During this time Matt was still trying to figure out his major (which I still didn’t quite catch).  A common theme amongst undergrad students is not wanting to attend career fairs, or even more so not sure what direction to go when attending one.  I feel as a twenty “something” it is always comforting knowing others at your age were just as lost as you feel now. During the interview Matt also touched on the idea that just getting your “foot in the door” is key. This is a common saying amongst all adults to the younger generations, hearing it from a successful screenwriter made it seem more legitimate  (a relief to my parents, that their favorite saying does hold true).

After the interview I felt that I got to know Matt better as a person, a real person versus a name in the credits. Although the interview was lacking in a lot of areas it was refreshing to hear someone who has attained “success” say it’s normal to struggle and be lost at 22.

Perfumed Nightmare is a semi-autobiographical third cinema film by Filipino director Kidlat Tahimik. It focuses on his journey from his small poor village in the Philippines to flying to Paris, and seeing the industrialized parts of the world that he has never experienced before. This film was interesting but at the same time very confusing. It didn’t seem to have a story line that viewers could easily pinpoint. You never knew what was gonna happen next. There was no clear goal or path in the story, but the viewer has to decide for themselves what they think the main focus of the film is.

One thing that really stood out to me about this film was that it was a Third Cinema film. Third Cinema was first coined as a way to influence revolutionary activism and it goes against the capitalist system and neocolonialism. It also goes against the Hollywood genre of film making for revenue purposes. I was confused about Kidlat’s purpose of Third Cinema until after seeing the movie. It took a while to figure out what his exact focus or purpose was, but I think I understand his vision a little more now. The movie made me feel many emotions throughout each scene. I felt sadness for Kidlat when he shows his village and how he and his people are very poor. One of the most important scenes to me is when he shows the ritual that little boys in his village must go through when they turn 8 or 9 to become “men.” The boys must be circumcised, but because they live in a third world country, they do not have doctors and medicines and the many things we have in industrialized countries. The boys are circumcised without any medical attention or medicine to aide with the pain. The whole time I was watching that gruesome scene, all I could think about was how much we take for granted in first world countries. We do not all fully understand the privileges we have and how easy a lot of things are for us. It made me realize that I need to take a step back in my life and stop acting so spoiled sometimes and really be thankful for what I have and what is provided to me. If I ever have any types of injuries I can easily go to a doctor’s office and get help and I am provided any medicine I may need. But they do not get that option in these countries. It saddens me that I get to sleep in a comfortable bed while small children have to sleep on a dirt ground every night somewhere else in the world.

To me, the meaning of Kidlat’s work was to show that the industrialized countries aren’t as great as it is made out to be. When he gets to Paris, he is so happy and is enjoying seeing all the technology and discovering things he has never seen or heard of before. The honeymoon phase ends when he starts working for the delivery business and goes to the large Supermarket. He sees the market with all of this food and supplies and he thinks of how much that one store could benefit and help feed his entire village and he becomes angry with the industrialized countries and how much we waste and take for granted. I interpreted the meaning of his work as his journey of discovering first world countries and realizing that they are very corrupt and selfish.

At the beginning of Perfumed Nightmare I can honestly say that I was discouraged. You could tell it was extremely low budget, and it was a little bit of a turn off. I can appreciate low budget films, but this just seemed a little bit too extreme for me. However, as the story developed and progressed, my opinion of the film changed.

While, for the most part, I had no idea where the story was going, I found myself becoming very interested in the characters and situations being portrayed. I was very interested in how much Kidlot admired the little he knew about America. How much he yearned to be there, and how he wanted to fall into the loving arms of capitalism and become rich. Now I know that more than anything he wanted to become an astronaut, but he also did mention that he wanted to become rich and famous. Kidlot religiously listened to his radio and was the leader of the Wernher von Braun fan club. It was very interesting to me that they chose for Kidlot to aspire to be an astronaut, because that is a very American aspiration. Every little boy growing up in America said that they wanted to be an astronaut at one point in their life. This part of his character really helped me understand where this movie was going.

The middle section of the movie dragged on a little in my opinion. We were exposed to some of the traditions of the village that he lived in, and that was pretty good insight, but it seemed a little but unnecessary. However, as soon as Kidlot went to Paris the movie really gained its traction with me.

I tried to place myself in Kidlots’ shoes. Seeing an industrialized civilization for the first time would be a crazy feeling. I could not imagine going from a village that lives a pretty simple life to a place like Paris. The huge buildings, the constant hustle that comes with big city life, and most importantly the completely foreign technologies. I would be in complete shock and awe, just like Kidlot. Kidlot embraces this new world, and even mentions his desire for progress from his village. But then Kidlot is exposed to what comes from industrialization and capitalism. He makes friends with one of the last street vendors in Paris. She is the only person left who sells real, farm fresh eggs. But she is quickly evicted from the story when the super market takes over her space. He begins to see the lifestyle of greed and excess that comes from capitalism, and he is very disappointed and ashamed.

I would like to think that if I were in Kidlots’ situation I would have the same feelings. Being raised on capitalism almost makes you numb to the effects it has. I admired Kidlots’ shame and it honestly made me feel a little bit guilty for the lifestyle that I am a part of. I think that is a true testament to the quality of this film. The fact that it can evoke such powerful emotions on such a low budget is a testament to the quality of the story, regardless of the talent of actors and staff.

I would like to take a look at a particular scene from the movie Perfumed Nightmare, staring and directed by Kidlat Tahimik. This is a more in-depth look to one of my answers for a question on quiz 3.The scene in question is the going away party that Kidlat’s American Benefactor throws in honor of them leaving Paris for the United States.
Kidlat’s American Benefactor waits at the entrance to the party for his guests to arrive. As each guest arrives the director intercuts his shot footage of actors with newsreel footage of an important Western-looking person arriving at a huge event. Each guest arriving at the party also wears a mask hiding the actor’s face – hiding their identity. This technique of intercutting between the masked actor/guest and the newsreel footage suggests to the audience that it is the important person from the newsreel footage who is actually arriving at the party. So each guest arriving at the party represents an important person.
After all the guests have arrived the scene cuts to a shot of Kidlat sitting in a chair. When Kidlat rises from his chair to greet the guests, his narration describes how he feels – that all these important Western guests are staring at him. The director emphasizes Kidlat’s feelings by selecting camera angles that shoot up at the guests and intercutting these with camera angles shooting down onto Kidlat as Kidlat begins to talk about how small he feels compared to these guests. This is further exaggerated by using a bird’s eye view shot taken in such a way that makes Kidlat look tiny, as if the guests were looking down on him.
Throughout the movie Kidlat talks about progress and how he feels that his home needs to embrace progress and modernize. Now he is face to face with these people of progress, of modernization, who represent all the idea that Kidlat had idealized throughout the movie, and Kidlat feels small. The director is using this sequence to show the audience that Kidlat’s idea of progress, the concept he has always dreamed about, is not actually what he envisioned it would be. The audience is left feeling that, in Kidlat’s world, progress is this all powerful thing that no one can hope to stop.
In the next part of the sequence Kidlat begins to think of the wooden horse his mother carved for him on his car. As mentioned in an article that I read online by Antonio Sison the horse was “carved by Kidlat’s mother from the butt of the rifle of Kidlat’s father after he is killed by the American soldiers”. The article further mentions that Kidlat’s mother tells him, “Take this horse on your travels. One day you might need him to help you find the path to freedom”. This is shown when the scene cut from Kidlat to a shot of a wooden horse next to a toy car. Kidlat starts to think about the bridge shown in the beginning of the movie and what he had done. The scene then cuts back to the shot of Kidlat where he resumes his narration. He states his name and says that he is not actually as little as they make him feel. The shot cuts back to the toy car, but now the wooden horse is magnified to 3 to 4 times larger than its original size in the previous shot. The scene then cuts back to Kidlat who starts to blow air out of his mouth. With added sound effects of strong harsh winds, the following shots show the American and his guests being pushed away and rolling on the ground. This creates the illusion that Kidlat is blowing them away.
Kidlat’s character has now developed the strength and courage to stand up against progress. He begins to blow away all his past notions of progress. He rejects this “progress.” Kidlat has discovered that anyone has the power to stand up to things, such as progress, even if you are alone.
This sequence is the turning point for Kidlat’s convictions. He no longer supports progress as he did in the beginning of the film. But what is this progress that Kidlat is now rejecting? Kidlat made Perfumed Nightmare after attending Wharton Business School in the US. He returned to the Phillipines and made a Third Cinema film that has all the appearances of being an unsophisticated piece of film making, but perhaps it is the opposite. Perhaps Kidlat is stating his opposition to the Americanization of the Philippines and perhaps we should consider this film the work of a revolutionary.

Perfumed Nightmare was a film that stayed with me even after I had watched it. For awhile I couldn’t really pinpoint what exactly it was that made me continue to think about it, but before writing this blog post I realized it was the way it critiqued Western culture. Over the course of my college career, I have taken classes, read articles and watched other films that critiqued Western culture in the same way but nothing has stood out to me as much as this film. I think the reason for this resonance is because the film is part of the Third Cinema genre.

One of the aspects of Third Cinema is that it does not follow the traditional Hollywood format of movies. Perfumed Nightmare grabs your attention right away because it opens with short scenes of a poor looking town in the Philippines. There is a voiceover of the main character but it never really tells you definitely what the movie is about. In stereotypical Hollywood movies, you know who the main character is after usually the first scene and you can basically predict what the storyline will consist of.

Another aspect of Third Cinema is its critique on the capitalist system. Perfumed Nightmare does this most obviously when the main character travels from his hometown in the Philippines to France. It really resonated with me when Kidlat Tahimik was so astonished by the “moving floor” and “doors that open for you.” By the end of his stay in France, you can tell that his euphoria over Western culture is gone. He questions why people need this much excess in their lives and ends up going back to the Philippines.

Third Cinema allowed Perfumed Nightmare to seem very authentic and was like a snapshot of the real lives of real people. I think that if it had been a Hollywood movie, yes, maybe I would have taken the message that Western culture can be excessive away with me. But I think by the sheer ruggedness with which the film was portrayed gave it more meaning and ended up staying in my mind long after the story was over.

I think that the film Peeping Tom is a horror film that of the typical conventions of the horror narrative. One piece of the narrative that stuck out to me was the way that the villain, Mark Lewis, is portrayed. Most horror and serial killer films have a tendency to depict the killer as some mysterious figure, who only shows up when it is time for him or her to commit a heinous act of murder. The main protagonist in a horror film is usually the person that will eventually defeat the murderer, who is usually the main antagonist. In Peeping Tom, however, Mark Lewis, the murderer, is the main focus of the story, as opposed to his victims. This gives a rare introspective into what the killer thinks and feels in regards to his killing ways. It lets the audience get to know the character on a deeper level, to the point where the audience begins to empathize with the killer.

The film allows the killer, Mark Lewis, to explain his motives and reasons for doing what he does. The film makes a powerful statement that many horror films stray away from. Peeping Tom lets its’ audience know that not every killer is born the way they are. Many have experienced some sort of psychological trauma that led them towards their actions. The cinematography adds to the perspective of the killer. Most of the film is from a point of view perspective from Mark Lewis’s camera. We see what he sees, and in some way, we become part of his kill. All of these elements lead towards Mark being considered the “hero” of the story for a profound amount of time. Of course, until he attempts to murder his love interest, Helen.

In his regular interactions with people, Mark does not come off as a killer or psychopath. Mark is timid and quit, but kind. He hides is psychotic tendencies quite well, and presents himself as the last person you would expect to do such a thing. Which is actually a common characteristic among accomplished serial killers. I guess that explains how they get away with it long enough to become serial killers. It even gets to a point where I personally forgot that he was a killer, during his interactions with Helen.

In the 1960’s, it was still controversial to present a killer as the protagonist of a film, which, I think, is what led to this film being so universally panned by critics. It was ahead of its’ time in the level of depth it created within a main antagonist who normally would have no such emphasis placed on back-story. It is also what makes me enjoy the film so much. I love learning more about why characters with evil motives decided to choose their path. It creates an interest and an investment in the character that otherwise would not have existed. Peeping Tom leaves me thinking about what it was like growing up for poor Mark Lewis, and at what point did he snap.

Peeping Tom is a 1960’s horror film that was directed by Michael Powell. Initially, this film received harsh critiques; it was the first of it’s kind to be presented in the Hollywood film industry. In recent years the critiques have changed and many people think it is unusual but brilliant. Despite the change in reviews towards the film, I think that Peeping Tom is sadistic and disturbing due to the perspective it is filmed from.

Unlike the classic horror film that allows us to view events from the victim’s perspective, Peeping Tom does the opposite by illustrating events via the perspective of the killer — or in some cases, through the lens of his camera. The main character, Mark, films women with a mirror attached to the camera. He does this so that when he approaches them to kill, they can see their own horror in the mirror, allowing Mark to capture their terrified faces on film. He is doing this, in part, for the movie he is trying to create.

Filming the movie through this perspective is disturbing because we cannot sympathize with the victim(s). Instead, we find ourselves trapped into the mindset of the killer — it’s almost like we are doing the killing simply by watching the movie. As the viewers, we cannot see what they (the victims) are seeing. We only see them scared and screaming while Mark approaches them. We don’t know what Mark is doing with the mirror until very late into the film. Filming the movie like this forces the viewer to take on the role of the killer — not something that your everyday film enthusiast would enjoy.

The first scene of the movie shows Mark filming a prostitute as he follows her back to a room. We are watching this through the lens of his camera for the majority of the time. It is clear to see that Mark is somewhat of an usual character in terms of normative behavior from the beginning, but we aren’t sure why yet. All that we see is the camera (Mark) slowly moving towards the prostitute that is lying on the bed. She starts to scream and looks mortified, but we still don’t know what she is seeing. It looks like she is looking at us — the audience. As we catch on to the fact that Mark is a killer, each of his kills grows more and more gruesome to watch.

By forcing the audience to see the film through the perspective of the killer, the film appears to be very sadistic in it’s nature. Obviously Mark enjoys what he is doing and given that we don’t, it’s like we are being tormented to watch. The original critiques of this film shared the same opinion. Horror films had traditionally presented the narrative from the perspective of the victim, and Peeping Tom got a lot of attention for doing the opposite.

Although some people may interpret this film as intriguing, being one of few of it’s kind, I still feel that it is disturbing and sadistic. If I’m going to watch a scary movie, I don’t want to feel like I am doing to killing and torturing. I want to side with the victim. Peeping Tom does not allow the audience to sympathize with the victim(s), therefore it is sadistic and sort of barbaric.

“Peeping Tom,” released in 1960 and directed by Michael Powell, is a disturbing thriller about a serial killer obsessed with catching the images on camera of those he kills right before he kills them. The very title of the movie elicits the idea that this film is voyeuristic since peeping tom’s are those who observe people without their knowledge. However, what truly makes this the sadism of the main character, the serial killer, Mark. He takes pleasure in the sadistic voyeurism of producing his films about igniting fear and capturing that on camera and then killing his victims. So he is not only watching and filming these women (voyeurism) but his obsession is in capturing the fear on film (sadism).

However, another factor that adds to the sadistic voyeurism in this film is the male gaze, which stems from feminist theory in regards to the patriarchal way women are portrayed in films. In “Peeping Tom” Mark not only singles out women as his victims for no explicit reason, but when he is filming them, and the way we see them through his camera, is often in a sexually objectified manner. To illustrate my point a little more clearly, I will focus on the opening scene, in which we don’t know Mark’s identity yet, but we get a stage-setting view of his first victim.

The first shot is an extreme closeup of someone’s eye (Mark, but we don’t know that yet). This imagery suggests gaze, as the eye is looking straight ahead. The next shot is an establishing shot of a dark, abandoned street with a lone woman looking into a store window. The unidentified man walks out of the bottom corner of the shot and begins to approach the woman. He then stops, and we get a closeup of a camera in his bag, with the lens’ peaking out of the top of the bag. He takes his coat and tries to cover up the camera so it is not so obvious. We then hear a click followed by a mechanical rotating sound, which makes us understand that the camera is indeed filming. The perspective then shifts to inside the lens of the camera, and this is when we get a true sense of the voyeuristic nature of this man as he films a strange woman, unknown to her.

Through the lens we see him approach the woman, and as he gets closer, the camera shifts down onto her butt before moving back up to her face again. This is the first distinct example of the male gaze. The woman is dressed in a tight skirt wearing tights and high heels, and when the camera focuses on her body, we get a sense of sexual objectification. As the woman notices him, she turns around and says, “It’s be two quid,” implying that she is a prostitute. When she turns around to lead him to her place, he agrees to the deal by following, and films her as she crosses the street, and leads him into an alley. When she stops to unlock the door, the camera again shifts down to film her entire body, before the man’s arm is shown throwing something away. When they walk up the stairs he focuses on her butt and her legs, again sexually objectifying her body. As they enter the room, she begins to undress and he stands still to watch (and film) as she does so. He then proceeds to kill her, but all we see as the viewer is a look of extreme fear on her face and hear her screaming before the shot cuts to the man watching the film he just made in his own personal theater. The fact that Mark watches his films and obsesses over the quality of them reasserts the sadistic voyeurism.