In class, we watched the beginnings of Sherman's March and Symbiopsychotaxiplasm. Based on these introductions, which film would you want to see more of? Would you want to see both? Neither? Why?Please post a thoughtful response explaining the reasons behind your decision. Include in your post if/how considerations of subject and technique, etc. factor in. Feel free to compare and contrast the two films, thematically and aesthetically. Think about the ways in which they are similar and different.
9 comments:
I could have kept watching Sherman's March for the rest of class. For some reason I was hooked. It has been over a week since I saw either of these, but I think there is something to be said about letting a film distill for a while. I remember that Ross McElwee's take on things seemed like Woody Allen only slowed down a notch, with a somber tone. I liked how all the shots of him were far away or contained just a fraction of him (a hand, some hair, etc). I felt like this filmmaker was being honest and straight forward, which is refreshing.
As for Symbiopsychotaxiplasm (I'm not writing that out again) I am curious to see more of it just to see where it goes. it feels like a film that needs to be followed all the way through. I was interested and hooked, but for reasons other than interest in what was going on, I just wanted to know what was going on if that makes sense. I like the idea of filming a film, and would have liked to know if the fiction film they were shooting was even supposed to occur at all. Also it was great to see Eclair NPRs in action. Hooray for 16mm!
If I had to chose one of the two films shown, I would chose symbiopsychtaxiplasm. I would pick this film because I like the style and I want to see where it goes from where we left off. I’m into that behind the scene footage and seeing the process of what it takes to make things happen.
Although, I think both of them were kind of clichéd and I don’t know if I would want to see either of them in full. But symbiopsychtaxiplasm did stick in my mind. To me neither had any point or purpose. It seems like they were just recording what ever happened to them on a everyday bases. If they were someone famous or going through an actual important journey, maybe their stories would have more purpose to me.
Both of these films bewildered me. I have a huge interest in seeing Symbiopsychotaxiplasm but no matter how interesting it seemed to me, i felt lost. I feel that even with a, from start to finish watch, i would have no idea of the point of the film. Maybe thats just the point. Regardless i reckon the introduction was great.
On the other hand i felt that Sherman's March was quite interesting. With it's deeply personal story line i couldn't help but stay compelled. I found it to be a bit boring here and there but i really loved the strange characters and the relationships they shared. If made to choose one of the two to watch all the way through i would go with Sherman's March.
I would definately like to see Sherman's March in its entirety. The filmmaker gives you a close connection with the characters which makes it easier to watch, follow, and get hooked. It was a personal essay film which I found to be a relatable story, that is why I would rather watch Sherman's March than Symbiopsychotaxiplasm.
Symbiopsychotaxiplasm is a very original and creative idea but I just couldn't get into it because there was no strong narative storyline which I prefer in a film. I guess I can't get into something unless I know what is going on at all times and what the film is trying to tell me. Symbiopsychotaxiplasm just showed examples of people fighting and behind the scenes footage of a crew shooting a movie in a park. All in all it did not have enough to keep my interest.
is there ever a film you don't know anything about but you know you don't want to see it? that is how i felt about Sherman's March. it was always being suggested to me but i just never had desire to see it. oh how wrong i was to feel that way. i love love love it. i would even go as far to say that it's my favorite i have seen this month. i was thinking about how these two films are similar and what was obvious was how self-indulgent each where. thing is Sherman's March was so identifiable that i wanted the film maker to keep going in his own direction with the film. though Symbiopsychotaxiplasm has its own value as a critique of the nature of film making, i don't see myself in the mood to watch it again.
I would like to finish the remainder of both the films. I thought that Sherman's March was interesting, and I liked that the film was basically completly from the filmmaker's perspective. The film reminded me in many ways of A Complete History of My Sexual Failures somewhat in the way it was shot, but more in the way that both of them recieved funding for somewhat different projects than they actually did.
I enjoyed Symbiopsychotaxiplasm, and would like to see the rest of it, but I didn't exactly understand where it was going. While I slightly understood the "plotline", if you could call it that, I didn't really understand where it was going. That is the main reason that i would like to continue watching it, to see how it turns out and where it goes to next.
I could have watched either, but if I had to choose i would choose Symbiopsychotaxiplasm. Sherman's March was good, but i feel like it didn't have much more to offer then what was already screened.
Symbio. is a film that i can relate to aesthetically as well as in theory. The film has an essence of experimental realism which creates something i like to call collective focused impressionism. A vision of the world (or whatever) through a confused and blurry frame, random, choppy, beautiful but collectively assembled in a rythmic order to symbolize the creators main points. In the 60's times were uncertain and confusing in most aspects of American life, which sparked a social revolution that changed the way certain people viewed the world around them. Symbio, is a cinematic representation of this very topic, the way in which people view the world around them, and an investigation on what makes IT that way.
Based on the short clips we have watched in the class, I would not like to see either of the films moreso in class. For some reason, I can't stand movies/films produced in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. The colors are washed out, and takes my focus off the story itself. For some reason, black and white has no affect on me. The picture looks crisp.
Anyways! Sherman's March was okay, made me laugh with the girl making her "sexual exercises." The interviews, and the meeting of his high-school sweet-heart was a nice touch, but then he fell for a different girl while there? What's up with that?
I I felt as if Symbiopsyhotaxiplasm didn't have a organized direction it was leading to, no identifiable plot. I was kind-of confused if that was a "behind the scenes" introduction, or what was it?
Shermans March was honest in a way so few documentaries... or people ever are. I was in the heart and brain of the man holding the camera, which was wonderful. Sure, kind of boring (hearts and brains kind of are) but the characters are enthralling and the doc really did just take its own course. There was no forceful effort to create the story or something hidden, the plot was supposed to be centered on something, life happened, and as it turned out how it really went was the plot and life switched focus and turned out to be about something else. No massive decelerations or analyzations, more a commentary on the flow of life and how things just happen. I'll take it.
Symbiopsyhotaxiplasm just isn't for me. I spent a lot of time feeling as though I've already missed something just from the way it is shot and presented. I felt like I hadn't been there for the beginning, even though I obviously had.
Post a Comment