Deren and Brakhage

1. My Reaction
I liked some of the films. Trying to understand them was difficult for me. I want to put a narrative over everything and apparently the directors don't want me to do that. I couldn't understand any of the films until we had the readings and discussions in class. Even then it was a little hazy.
I would say the one thing that caught my eye was the way that editing can manipulate what the viewer sees. I thought Brakhage was almost trying to lie to us with his images. He want us to think they are very natural, very true films. But then we see a non-linear video, where time has no bearing. It just goes to show that even the truest of films, when edited at all, aren't true anymore.
2. Class Discussion
For me, the way that physical space is changed with the camera is probably the most interesting thing about these films, seeing as how they were done so early on. The fact that the way it is filmed can change from one location to the next while the character looks as if they have barely moved is interesting.
For Deren's chess film, I like how someone in class mentioned Chess being compared to the game of life, where she is chasing her pawn, but once she gets it she controls her world.
With Deren it was also brought up how she can make emotion by slowing down the camera and doing camera tricks. It is a physical tool that can control human emotion.
As far as Brakhage films, the physicality of all of his films is awesome. The moth wings, the forest images, and the woman giving birth all were very nature-like to me. They are the basic things in the natural world around us that happen everyday.
As far as the birth film, people said it was intrusive and taking away personal things form the lady. That film was non-sequential and really showed how the director can manipulate even what seems like pure natural and true.
3. The Readings
Deren's reading mentioned time and space and space and time. They discuss how photography isn't like any other medium. Nothing is as true as photography. Something, for example, in a painting, could represent an apple, but it is not an apple. The only thing that could correctly portray an apple would be a photo, either still or moving (film).
It also mentions how you can change emotion through how it's filmed, by tricking time and space. You can mess with the viewers head any way you want when you film and edit.
As far as the Brakhage reading, i like the way that he looks at fundamental things such as life and death and looks at them without narration. Being a typical American moviegoer i want everything to have a narrative. He apparently wants to work without it.