Slowness is not just relative, it's entirely subjective unless you're
going to define certain criteria weighted against each other for a
specific definition of 'slowness' (e.g., length of takes, amount of
camera movement, lines of dialogue, etc.). A large part of what makes
it subjective is that a conception of slowness depends on weighing the
significance of the types of events that you are measuring the rate
of.
Andy Warhol's 'Eat' might be considered very slow by most people,
since very little happens that will register in most people's minds as
events, but that definition of slowness depends on downplaying the
significance of events that most people don't consider important (film
grain, facial micromovements, etc.). If you decide to make a slow
film festival based on a definition of 'slowness' relating to what
most people consider slow, then the first task is to figure out what
most people consider slow. One thing that seems to make a big
difference is that an otherwise silent scene will appear much faster
if appealing music is playing in the background, but that's just an
observation on my part.
Alternatively, it might be more interesting to come up with a few
dozen ideas of what might constitute criteria for slowness and show
films that represent extremes of those notions of slowness.
Jun-Dai
On 7/19/07, Adam Aboulafia <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Slowness is obviously relative, but one needs to determine the objects of
> comparison, the elements measured and the means by which to achieve the
> effect. Cinema's objects are Life's practices, and its basic element is
> movement. A slowing-down of movement within this filmic context may be
> achieved in many ways and for different purposes. An Antonioni can present a
> situation where practice becomes impossible, or at least insignificant, so
> that time loses its rhythms of action and we achieve an infinite slowness
> (nothing really moves, but you cant say the image is frozen). A Fellini will
> present similar slowness, but only to gain astounding energies of
> acceleration towards some sort of festivity. A rossellini on the other hand
> will present a slowness which is determined by its incessant regularity
> (here rhythm is present, but in such a slow way as to become ambient -
> "Francis, God's Jester", especially the leper scene). These are only Italian
> examples.
>
> Warhol's "sleep" is a whole other story. There, it is the machinic gaze of
> the camera which achieves a certain endurance that is nonhuman. There is no
> slowness since it is lifeless. a sleeping man, a dead camera, both
> operating. It is not interesting to call this film "slow" relative to
> mainstream cinema in general (why state the obvious?), but to examine how
> slowness is achieved relative to the whole of the film itself and its
> particular links to conventions of film. Now, sleep is usually depicted in
> transition to something else (the figure awakes..., the figure's dream...)
> or at least relative to something else (the sleeping figure is undisturbed
> by the racket outside...), but here it is cut off, shown in-itself. This
> absolute cut and elongation-of-description should not be measured in terms
> of slowness, since nothing is being slowed down (its not that the transition
> from sleep to wakefullness occurs slowly; it never occurs). The dynamics of
> this machinic typology of practices (sleep, kiss, [gazing at] the empire
> state building) is one of autonomous frames or categories which never
> achieve rhythm, and therefore are never "slow" or "fast".
>
>
>
> On 7/18/07, gyoungblood <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > You can't NOT go that far, and of course we are measuring ourselves. "A
> > measure measures measuring means." John Cage
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Henry Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask] >
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 6:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: slow film festival
> >
> >
> > > "Time may or may not exist"
> > >
> > > I don't know if I'd go that far, but 'slowness' needs thinking out.
> > > What are we measuring 'over time', as it were -- not distance, but
> > > what?
> > >
> > > On 7/18/07, gyoungblood <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >> Slow compared to what? The overexcited unconsciousness of commodity
> > >> cinema?
> > >> A pretty pathetic comparison, it seems to me. Slow compared to the
> > >> passing
> > >> of the hours? Are surveillance videos slow (e.g., Michael Klier's Der
> > >> Reise)?
> > >>
> > >> Clearly, slow/fast are observations about the subject, not the object.
> > >> The
> > >> undecideable enigma of time problematizes any such discussion from the
> > >> beginning, and Bergson, among so many others, nuances the discourse.
> If
> > >> we're into dualisms, I prefer open/closed rather than slow/fast.
> > >>
> > >> I would suggest that Warhol's Eat, Kiss, Sleep, Empire, etc. are not,
> and
> > >> cannot be said to be, ontologically slow. Santantango, on the other
> hand,
> > >> is
> > >> very slow indeed if one privileges dominant cinema as the reference.
> Why
> > >> do
> > >> that? Time may or may not exist, but there is always choice. A Slow
> Film
> > >> Festival, for what it would say not only about our acculturation but
> > >> about
> > >> our attention to experience, would inescapably be an embarrassment.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Les Roberts" < [log in to unmask]>
> > >> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 2:25 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: slow film festival
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > Another master of 'slow cinema' and of the use of the sequence shot
> in
> > >> > particular is Theo Angelopolous. His 4 hour epic 'The Travelling
> > >> > Players'
> > >> > contains only about 80 shots. The title of his 1998 film 'Eternity
> and
> > >> > Day' was deemed somewhat appropriate by certain critics at the time,
> > >> > unaccustomed as they no doubt were to the typically rather slow pace
> of
> > >> > Angelopoulous' work...
> > >> >
> > >> > Les Roberts
> > >> >
> > >> > *
> > >> > *
> > >> > Film-Philosophy salon
> > >> > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
> you
> > >> > are
> > >> > replying to.
> > >> > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> > >> > [log in to unmask]
> > >> > Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> > >> > For help email:
> [log in to unmask] , not the salon.
> > >> > *
> > >> > Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> > >> > Contact: [log in to unmask]
> > >> > **
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> *
> > >> *
> > >> Film-Philosophy salon
> > >> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
> > >> are replying to.
> > >> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> > >> [log in to unmask]
> > >> Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> > >> For help email:
> [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> > >> *
> > >> Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> > >> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> > >> **
> > >>
> > >
> > > *
> > > *
> > > Film-Philosophy salon
> > > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
> are
> > > replying to.
> > > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > > Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> > > For help email: [log in to unmask],
> not the salon.
> > > *
> > > Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> > > Contact: [log in to unmask]
> > > **
> > >
> >
> > *
> > *
> > Film-Philosophy salon
> > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are
> replying to.
> > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> > Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> > For help email: [log in to unmask],
> not the salon.
> > *
> > Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> > Contact: [log in to unmask]
> > **
> >
>
> * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please
> always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send
> the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For
> help email: [log in to unmask], not the
> salon. * Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact:
> [log in to unmask] **
--
_____________________
http://consulting.purico.jp
*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|