3 Facts from Sonic Outlaws

There were many different situations that were pointed out in this film about Negativland that could be seen as interventions. Even just the notion of what the band had been doing for years with experimentation of remixing found content and using interesting and strange sounds could be thrown in to the idea that maybe the band itself is an intervention in to the music world. I would venture to use this as one of my three points of this post. Negativland themselves are an intervention in to the popular music culture.

In a more specific sense, I would say that the release of the U2 album that got them sued was a very clear intervention. Many people could have went in to a store to grab a record of their friend's favorite band, and not even known that this album was not actually the real work from U2, but a remixed version made by another musical group. I also wonder what the reaction of actual U2 fans was when they were browsing the stores and came across this album. It seems that the idea would spark some interest in these listeners to buy the album and check it out.

The last thing from Sonic Outlaws that I will point out as an intervention is the part where the man known in the band as the "weatherman" is playing around with the machine that he's using to pick up cellular signals. At first when i saw him trying to do this I almost had to stop from laughing, but then I realized what year this film was from and remembered they didn't have as strict of control over these signals at the time. when he did pick up a signal I didn't know whether to think that it was creepy or cool. This situation would not really be seen as an intervention until you have seen the film yourself. Obviously the 2 parties talking on the phone have no idea that they are being listened to, so their ways of thinking about the call aren't being changed at all, but if you are watching this man do what he's doing to listen in, the idea that people might still be able to do this may make you think twice about what you say over the phone.

What are films about?

Hollis Frampton, or in this case, Sarah, tells us that a film is about what appears most throughout. This declaration seems to stir up some controversy from filmmakers. Is a film really about what we see the most? Is it not about a meaning that is attempting to be portrayed over time in a piece? Is a movie like Mission Impossible about Tom Cruise, or does it have a deeper meaning? I have to disagree with Frampton on this claim that a film is about the most prominent figure that is shown. In a lot of cases films are about something, or someone that is rarely shown. A good example of this is contemporary horror films. These films are based on suspense, for the most part, and draw people in by making them wonder what will happen next, or what the monster really is or looks like.

I had an amazing amount of random mixed feelings from watching Gunvor Nelson's 1990 animated film, Natural Features. To get straight to the point of the post before i babble on, I did not see any possible way to apply Frampton's tactic of distinction to this film. There were a lot of, one could say, "recurring" images such as the brush, the pictures of faces, and the use of liquid/paint, but there was so much going on in this film that it was very hard for me to follow. At the beginning I was instantly drawn in by the amazingly out of place, and sort of random sounds that were used. I think, for probably only the second time in this class, I could not keep my eye off of the screen for more than a split second during the first parts of the film. As it went on though, it seemed to get fairly repetitive and I started to lose interest. Over all I was not really a big fan of this work. I like abstract works, but this was just insane to me.

Math Lecture

I really didn't know what to think of when Carl told us that we would be having a film maker coming in to show us a thing or two about math. When James Benning got up on the stage and started working on his two white boards I was really confused. How could this possibly relate in anyway to experimental film, or even film in general? Benning's math started off very simple and progressively got more and more complex.

There was one thing that I noticed more and more prevalently as he kept working away with his math, he really loved what he was doing. Maybe that was one of Carl's reasons for bringing Benning in to talk to us. Not only does he make films, and enjoy doing that as well, he also has a passion for mathematics. James Benning worked out math problems for nearly two hours straight before telling us what the connection between his presentation and our class/interests was. When he did announce it, I really didn't fully understand it. I think that he should have taken more time to declare how this was relevant to us as art/film students.