naa na ni sa CD pero trip ra pud nako i’post..

pasensya sa photo essay ha.. 

space, time and motion on babel

 

          A film creates an image of “reality.” Its difference from theater is that in terms of presence, the audience in theater is present, yet absent in the actors’ world. While in film, it allows the audience to be mechanically absent to the actors’ world. Also in theater, a “real” person is there whereas in film, it just gives a “feeling” that a real person is there though the truth is no “real” man is there. With regard to acting, there is also a difference between an actor (theater) and a screen performer. For a stage actor, he works himself into a role and a screen performer takes a role onto himself. 

Space 

          A film has a two-dimensional space but because it has motion, then it becomes three-dimensional, and genuine visual action-space. The action space is also different from the real world since in cinema, it allows the audience to be between a certain point in the action space and a certain point of the ordinary space or be simultaneously in two different locations.          In connection to the movie Babel, it allows the audience to be at Morocco, or at Japan or San Diego/
Mexico without leaving their seats. Also, the space allows to move the “action” in one location (i.e. Japan to
Morocco).          But, in totality, the space in cinema is created. 

Time 

        In the film, there are what they call “viewing time” and “dramatic time.”  Viewing time refers to “the time of our ordinary experience, measurable on a watch, constant in rate and direction, though with variations.” Dramatic time on the other hand is like an action-space in cinema. “It is discontinuous and its order is created by the maker of the film.”          Back to
Babel, the scenes were (of course) in “dramatic time” or at some point overlapped with the viewing time. The dramatic time is evident in the scenes where Brad Pitt calls his “home” in
San Diego to check on the kids. The scenes following that particular scene are scenes in
Mexico where the kids Nanny took the kids with her to the wedding of her son. The way it was presented was in a manner that all the events in the movie are happening “simultaneously” in different places (i.e. the wedding and the shooting incident in
Morocco). But by the “end” part of the film, one would realize that, the scene wherein Brad Pitt called up was before the Nanny and the kids left for
Mexico and after his wife got shot. 

 

Motion 

          We all experience motion in our daily lives. But in terms of film, the camera limits or extends the “space” of the motion. Through the camera, it can “emphasize” things in relation to the “story” of the film. Also at times, it can change the “ordinary” experiences into something extra-ordinary.          In the Film, the panning of the camera along with the actions creates a tension. An example would be the scene where Brad Pitt was chasing the bus or the Japanese girl being high and having intimate moments with her friend’s cousin.

the woman in the “mood for love”..

Scenes         In the movie, the lead guy character and the woman didn’t have any “romantic” relationship as one may put it, and that they were just bugged by the strange “actions” of their spouses. The two were just so-called-“friends”, yet the way the scenes were taken; it evokes a different aura which tells the audience something conspicuous is going between them. Oftentimes, the camera is positioned behind the cabinet or the shots were taken through a window making it appear as though someone or somebody’s spying over the two. Also, contrary to what the two were claiming that there’s nothing going on between them, the shots/ scenes were taken in such way that it’ll create tension between the two and dissonance within the audiences’ “minds.” The location of some scenes was also a bit disturbing since it was taken in deserted places and quiet corridors of an “unknown” building. And though it was not stated directly, one would know something is “going on. 

Scophophilia

                                        

    At one point of the movie, one may think that the woman is the lead character since most of “her” was shown in the film. But analyzing the movie, basically the woman was not the “main” character or the main point of the whole story but just displayed as an “erotic” object. an object of a man’s gaze and the camera. As what can be observed from the shots/ scenes, the camera seems to caress the woman’s body by moving “through” it upward or downward or a close up on the hips and slowly moving up. There were also scenes were it focuses the hips and slowly zooming out to show the “whole” body of the woman, plus the “curves” as one may put it. Like what is written in Mulvey’s essay and the examples she cited (to have and to have not, Only angels have wings), the film also opened with women chit-chatting with each other and the camera was located far from them (still shot) on a alley/ corridor of the house and then one by one the women enters (can be seen in the frame) and they were wearing these “fitting” dresses/ clothes emphasizing their curves. Through this the women became the objects of the combined gaze of the audience and the male character/s in the film. The woman there was first “isolated, glamorous, on display and sexualized.” But as the story went on, she (assuming) fell in love with the man and became his so-called-“property.”                 Overall, it is evident and undeniable that the woman is the object or the image while the man was the “active” type and the bearer of the look along with the camera and the audience. 

on black and white..

                                             

on the technicalities of the film…

’twas nice..

digging deeper..

no wonder the film was the favorite of movie critics that time..

different camera shots and angles were used to depict different “meanings” for each scene..

Orson Welles was indeed good at combining different film elements..

the lighting..

the shots..

taken from the synopsis, the scene where Kane was signing a contract ang there was a sudden change in lighting, it really depicts or gives a clue of what he will be in the later part of the film…

as to the scenes involving Kane and Emily, the music and the “proxemics” used were appropriate.. at first, they were so sweet, and one would really see that they were really in love with each other.. but as it went on.. with different time frames, one would notice the sudden change in music— from slow to a little bit faster and you would also notice that there was also a change in the “space” between them.. as it went on, they talk less, the music changes and their places on the table changes.. this depicts the change in their relationship– as it turns sour…

                                          

Photo Source:

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5qgYXMFF8BQBFRyjzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NDgyNWN0BHNlYwNwcm9m/SIG=13peqlmdj/EXP=1170386328/**http%3A//a1259.g.akamai.net/f/1259/5586/5d/images.art.com/images/-/Citizen-Kane-Style-A–C10126048.jpeg

http://mud.mm-a4.yimg.com/image/2813114412

http://mud.mm-a2.yimg.com/image/2211025115

was it made to be understood?

                                                             
Matthew Barney…

Chrysler building..

The order..

Shots in different angle..

Different art forms..

A pink man going up…

Different “people”..

“unsa diay na?” i asked myself..

basically, i was just entertained by the images and “pictures” shown in the screen..

i had fun watching the “pink man” climbing up of the building and meeting different “people”..

but these people, to them, the “pink man” don’t exist..

..or, it was just meant that way..

different art forms were shown..

song/ music..

dance..

paintings/ sculptures..

even a man who is busy doing “something”..

“art performance o performance art?” i asked again.. i mean, “mao diay to among lesson for that day.. so.. ummm.. aha sa duha?”

…or.. maybe “mao jud tong duha..” combination gud..

then, i asked again, “unsa’y bout ipasabot ana? naa’y story?.. (pause) or dapat ba jud masabtan?..”

since i got no answer from my “inner” self, i texted gian, “naa siya’y story?” he siad, “maybe it was meant to be like that..” (if i remember it correctly)

ahmm… like that? as in, di maintindihan?? 

something’s happenening to the man– to the people..

pero, unsa?

….

……

in order for me to understand “Barney”..

da! nagresearch daw kuno ko/mi.. hehehe..

according to the “synopsis” of the Cremaster Cycle 3..

the story has something to do with the “masonic myth” of Hiram Abiff and the entered apprentice..

..then the architect was murdered by the apprentice and the building remained unfinshed..

“ahhh… oki…………… tapos?”

mao na diay to..

pero ato lang ba jud?

i mean.. im not really satisfied leaving things like that..

i need to find answers…

yet, ala man gud makatubag sa ako..

i tried to understand the cycle but there’s onnly one thing i got from it..

 …twas….

HEADACHE..

hehehehehe…

“wala japon ko’y nasabtan.. “

haaaaayyyyy..

and…

still..

di japon nako mawala ang pangutana na..

“was it made to be understood?”

Photo Source:

http://www.merio.de/knvpics/cover102/10285844N.jpg

http://www.celluloid-dreams.de/content/images/filmposter/the-cremaster-cycle.jpg

unaccessorized

a monologue..

about gay life..

but was it just a “monologue”?

….

……

basically, ’twas an example of a performance art..

it “presents” rather than being “represented”..

it shows something what “it” wants the audience to see  instead of just “showing” from a written text and “representing” the characters from the text..

performance art also involves the feelings of the “audience”

in this case, it has to express or trigger emotions..

elements..

SPECTACLE

… talks about the overall stage appearance..

in relation to the Antigong Agong, it can be said that it fits according to the play itself..

the “music pool” and the bamboo “stage” was created according to how it would fit in the story..

…it’s not all about the tage design, but it also includes on how the “actors” portayed each character and how they “acted” on stage..

DICTION

..has something to do with the utterance..

.. the lines used in the play also fit..

…the diction has something to do with how the words were created and delivered (i.e. difference between a command and a request)

MELODY

.. has something to do with the music..

..the use of music in the play as a background or to convey messages and even sound effects was great..

..it added emotions on the story or sometimes intensifies the emotions on certain scenes..

THOUGHT

… refers to the creation of words

… the word and sentence formation

… this element deals on how certain messages should ve “written” so that it would envoke the “right” emotion/s the writer wants the audience to “feel”.. in this case, in writing the script, the “audience” should be considered so that the “lines” written would give the same emotion/saccording to the writer’s “aim”..

.. with regard to the play, the “lines” were written in such a way that the audience could easily understand.. some lines were also in “tausug” to show or point the idea that the characters in the play were tausug..  with this, it can be said that the “lines” for each character fits..

stitches..

a story within a story..

a dream within a dream…

a movie within a movie..

oftentimes, one would wonder why there are certain parts of a story which were shared and some of it were just kept..

..or one would also wonder why not start from the very beginning till one reaches the dramatic part?…

…or taking for examle the movie “tuhog” and the musical play “antigong agong,” why did they have such flow of the events? (of course it did not exactly happened as what was shown or rather the order of the events is not exactly the order of the real events that happened) (eh?)
…basically, from each story that was turned into a so-called-work of art, the parts were just properly selected.. and the selection has something to do with the crucial/ significant event in the person’s life that the audience may find interesting…

… and the beauty of the artwork depends on how these parts were stiched together..

missing…

there’s always a part of a person which is connected to his past…

without that piece, something is missing..

the Bud Daho battle is one of the events that made a history..

sadly, only some peole get to know the real story..

this is simply because that “part” was kept..

the musical production by the Puddang Lupah Artists’ Guild made such difference..

they were able to share a part of history a lot of people seem to be missing…

with regard to the performance, it is indeed a very good one..

the parts were very well connected which made the “whole” wonderful..

as we all know (or have learned), an artwork is made up of parts which are interrelated to create a “whole”..

…and if this parts were properly “combined”, then the “whole” is certainly one hell of an art piece.. (and it can be called “beatiful)…

.. just like the play…

Source of the picture:

http://www.picture2puzzle.com.au/images/JIGSAW%20with%20image_web_DL.jpg

true or false..

(lisod-lisod ning topic karon ay so i opted na mag’bisaya para ma’ingon nako ug tarong akong mga dapat iingon..)

After several meetings, di gihapon ko sure kung naa ba jud ko’y nasabtan… All I know is that maka’sunggo ang ginapang’ingon nila Plato ug Aristotle…

Well, ani man gud na siya.. magstart ta kay Plato..

According to Plato, “art is three times removed from the ideal..” ug sa akong pagkasabot (kung tama man ko) kay ang “art” itself is an imitation from an imitation. ug iyang gina’imply na ang mga artist (i.e. painter) kay mga imitators pud. naa pa siya’y giingon na “heirarchy” of imitations, ug ginaingon didto na the higher the degree, the farther it gets from the ideal. wait sa, kaganina pa ko sige’g ingon ug “ideal” bah… unsa man jud ng “ideal”?..  uhhmmm.. para kay Plato ang ideal kay katong concept/s or ideas na naa sa “sacred realm”. asa ng “sacred realm? hmm… somewhere sa “kalangitan” or sa “hangin”.Tas diba mao na to ang “ideal” so pag mag create na ka ug “something” from that “concept”, it is already an imitation (in the second degree).. nganong second degree? kay ang first degree kay ang pag’absorb nimo ato na “ida” sa imung utok.. so mao na to.. na’third degree ang art kay, for example, naa’y bed na gihimo ang isa ka’carpenter, tas naa dayo’y painter.. tas gi’paint niya ang katong bed.. so ginaimitate na daw niya karon ang imitation… mao nahimong third degree… (wehehehe).. mao na na ang ginaingon ug ginatuohan ni Plato..

Si Aristotle, lahi pud ang iyaha… para niya ang art daw kay dili thrice removed from the reality kay twice lang daw… ug para sa iya, tanan nga naga’exist diri sa world kay already an imitation (yun nga lang with different essence). ani man gud daw na, naa’y something “ideal” then you’ll crate something from that ideal, ang product ato kay dili na ideal pero naa ang essence sa pagka’”ideal”.. yun nga lang dili na siya ‘tong ideal kay pwede na siya madadagan or mabawasan.. hmmm… unsa pa man ha… hmm… tama.. “essence” unsa man jud ning “essence”.. lisod man siya iexplain wui… pero ani… hmm.. pareha sa example ni sir na “bad”… it is used para tulugan, pero as time passes by, naga’change pud iyang essence… kay kunwari na’luma na tong bed.. tas la na siya ginagamit tas gihimo na lang siyang “junk”… naa lang japon iyang pagka’bed pero iyang essence lahi na kay ang naa sa iya ang essence na sa pagka’junk.. ‘yun! tas ana siya na ang isa ka imitation kay nagaconsist gihapon ug “parts” pero this parts contribute sa “wholeness” ato na butang..

so far, mao lang to akong nasabtan pa.. tas at the present time kay gina’hunahuna pa nako kung giunsa pag’disagree in a way ni Aristotle sa idea ni Plato… waaaahhh… and karon pud nagahunahuna pa ko if i make a lot of sense here… (heheheheh)