Film Topics: Landscape and Cinema at CU @filmtopicslandscape - Tumblr Blog

This is my creative project:

University Of Colorado Graduation Video // 2013

This is my creative project for the Landscape and Cinema class. Originally, i had a different idea for the project. My idea was to create a documentary movie about Boulder , which could be helpful for the people who want to know more about the city. However, I got a different film, which shows the beauty of chautauqua, but it still show the landscapes. Some of you who have visited chautauqua will consider it as a place because it might have a meaning and a value for them. They might have been hiking, or have other experiences in that land. Others might consider it as a spectacle because they enjoyed the movie. And this is my main theme, which is to show the beauty of the landscape. I hope that you enjoy the movie, and I would like to see your feedback.

Amelie and Lost in Translation

In depicting foreign landscapes, Amelie (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, 2001) romanticizes place, whereas Lost in Translation (Sofia Coppola, 2003) exaggerates the solitude and hopelessness carried by a new setting. These understanding of space arise by meticulously constructing characters’ approaches to setting through either objectivist or subjectivist models, according to “Aesthetics and Environment” by Allen Carlson. Both films depict the personalities of places using drastically different tactics to construct the mood of their environment. Aiming to evoke their audiences’ senses, both films use certain strategies to navigate audiences’ perspectives towards place. Carlson would call this philosophical drive of artists and filmmakers “aesthetics” (Carlson xvii). As Carlson would indicate “Our appreciation reaches beyond pristine nature to our more mundane surroundings: the solitude of a neighborhood park on a rainy evening, the chaos of a bustling morning marketplace, the view from the road” (Carlson xvii). Amelie and Lost in Translation accomplish just that by taking normal aspects of their community, components of place people might usually overlook, and exaggerating them into spectacle. Using the personality of landscapes as major characters in films provides filmmakers with unique tools to manipulate the soul of a setting. Comparing and contrasting films (representing duality in foreign thematics) gives theorists a forum to assign landscapes with identities. Using Carlson’s two models of observing environment in film, subjectivist and objectivist stances, provides categories for comparing the approaches of the films.

Carlson opens his journal by explaining the difference between our environment and a piece of art (with has a designer). Because appreciating landscapes can be a complex process, Carlson suggests that films should be understood by examining “aesthetic objects” (Carlson xvii). For instance,In Amelie the cityscape is painted in a way that implies mystery and adventure. As Amelie goes about her life, she is moving within a setting she appreciates, which changes her relationship with the setting (Carlson xvii). Amelie views her city as a complex mechanism, encapsulating diverse lifestyles. This perspective fuels her senses, allowing the audience to engage with her what she sees, hears, feels, smells, and sometimes even tastes (Carlson xvii).

Amelie’s stance toward landscape would fit into the objectivist model. Amelie uses two perspectives in forming her attitudes towards place, considering the film takes into account the appreciator and the object of appreciation. For Amelie, her landscape is something to be admired and investigated. Her city, the people in it, and the building blocks of her community (like her workplace and the market) pose as opportunities to explore. Amelie observes the people in her life as if she would examine a complex piece of artwork. She wants to know the details that make them who they are. For instance, Amelie finds peace in knowing the likes and dislikes of the people around her. She uses trivia, like the fact that her father likes to unload and clear his toolbox, to glamorize otherwise mundane occurrences in life. Although she chooses uncomplicated moments in her descriptions (that would likely be downplayed in importance in most films) she paints their personalities in a beautiful way noting subtle moments of goodness. She suggests her feelings towards place by citing arguments and examples from her real life (Clarson xix). Her knowledge of place guides her perspective, constructing her city in an optimistic light.

Lost in Translation takes a more subjectivist angle into account. This model, also called “skeptical,” believes that observing the environment is far different from considering a piece of artwork. For subjectivists, approaching landscape is so multifaceted that an organized structure cannot exist to guide its viewer (Carlson xix). Unlike viewing art, developing a perspective towards landscape does not give observers a framework to determine their attitudes. In other words, delving into an “aesthetic object” requires character to simply jump in and accept the resulting consequences. In Lost in Translation, Charlotte wonders throughout her new landscape, grasping for some sense of understanding. As she explores her surroundings she lacks a classical structure in understanding her new home. She does not access a checklist that can guide her in her decision process. She can only determine her innermost feelings towards her landscape by interacting with it openly. This ambiguity allows Charlotte to immerse herself until she can determine true feelings.

As Carlson would suggest, characters relationships with the environment are never stagnant (as is the case in both Amelie and Lost in Translation), because “aesthetic objects” are fluid. Not only do characters move through a changing landscape that reacts to their presence, the environment shifts of its own accord.

Carlson explains that film aesthetics are a philosophical reflection of how our senses come to interact with what we encounter. When our senses are impacted in a pleasing way, we regard nature and our world in various ways. For example, if we encounter a beautiful landscape, like the ethereal imagery of Amelie, audiences will likely experience a pleasant feeling.

Whether a filmmaker chooses to utilize the objectivist or the subjectivist model, certain problems exist with either categorization. For example, when observing aesthetic objects the prospects to consider range from “wilderness areas, to rural landscapes and countrysides, to cityscapes, to neighborhoods, to market places, to shopping centers, and beyond” (Carlson xx). In Amelie the filmmaker could have chosen from a wider range of spaces than he did, and many theorists suggest he should have. He is heavily criticized for his choice to depict the beautiful parts of France (the idyllic imagery from his memories) as opposed to a more realistic France. Because aesthetics can apply to any location, some would suggest Amelie had too much freedom in investigating aesthetics creatively. Good or bad, studying aesthetics does not criticize filmmakers for choosing to examine as many or as few places her or she would like to capture. Likewise, in Lost in Translation, Charlotte explores spaces ranging from tranquil religious buildings to brightly lit casinos. Both landscapes imply different metaphors about what it might be like to like in Japan, yet they are allowed to be placed within the same film to challenge audiences. A wide range of aesthetics are considered in both films, leaving the filmmakers with space to play.

Another aesthetic issue lies in size. For instance, Carlson’s categorization does not cut off any type of setting for being too large or too small for consideration. In Amelie that might mean the filmmaker is allowed to examine the entire city of France as a whole. In doing so, he utilized clichés and overarching assumptions about Paris. At the same time, Amelie also has access to much smaller spaces, like exploring the inside of a photo booth. In Lost in Translation, the filmmaker has access to incredible, vast spaces like the cityscape of downtown Tokyo, yet the filmmaker can also place Charlotte in a space of solitude, like her bedroom. With such varying spaces, the term “aesthetic” makes space for filmmakers to consider all types of places, big and small.

Perhaps most importantly, aesthetics do not limit the ability of a film to portray the ordinary versus the extraordinary (Carlson xx). In Amelie the city of France is depicted in an almost magical sense. Amelie has near psychic abilities in observing the world around her. She is capable of solving the mysteries that intrigue her simply by looking. Although it might not be realistic, Amelie’s ability to procure her curiosities, like suddenly knowing how many couples might be orgasming in a specific moment, make her connection with space magical. The colors depicted in the film make Paris look ethereal, which many theorists would suggest is an inaccurate depiction of France. In fact, Amelie was not shoot fully entirely in Paris. Many country’s’ landscapes were used to compile the idyllic Paris. As Amelie goes about her life, working in a local coffee shop and working to connect with her future lover, her landscape is always alive and intriguing. In terms of aesthetics, the filmmaker has done nothing wrong in taking creative liberties to depict place, yet many would disagree.

Meanwhile, Lost in Translation, the filmmaker has nearly extracted all magic from the city. In Lost in Translation characters move about their miserable lives searching for connection. In this film fame does not console isolation, nor does ambiguity. Bob follows his career as a famous actor to an opportunity in Japan to sell liquor in Japan. Bob advertises whisky internationally, although he would prefer to be acting on his passions. As his relationship with his family and friends dwindles, maintained only through a fax machine and brief phone conversations, he finds himself emotionally lost and alone. Bob towers above the fast moving crowds, his height mimicking the alienation achieved through fame. He cannot communicate with his new, foreign coworkers, and he seems to only find relief in consuming the alcohol he sells. He, like his target audience, craves motivation and lacks direction. A muted, disconnected woman, who resides in Bob’s hotel, struggles for fulfillment. watches as her husband pursues his dreams, whilst she lacks the ability to identify her own. Her husband captures performances on film, to make his living. Ironically, Charlotte wonders if her “performance” is true to what she really wants. When Charlotte meets Bob in the hotel bar, both characters find themselves gravitating towards each other, craving the human connection and guidance they so desperately need. Unlike Amelie, Lost in Translation delves into the dreary reality of life in a big city.

Modern theorists sometimes also consider the idea of the “object model,” which allows the viewer to consider naturally occurring objects. This means, the objects can be appreciated based on their physicality, or “formal properties.” In Amelie we observe her neighbor’s painting. Art is an example of an object that can be understood through aesthetic characteristic. In this case, the art allows the audience to better understand the relationship between characters, and their relationship with the external world.

“The Appreciation of Nature,” delves into methods of interpreting aesthetics. Using landscape as a character in film, means audiences must be able to identify with a non-human entity. Being able to connect with a landscape and understand its connotations has the potential to bring cinema to life. Carlson’s “Aesthetics and the Environment” takes movie viewers down that path to better connect with film, especially in uniquely constructed landscape films like Amelie and Lost in Translation.

WORKS CITED

Amelie. Dir. Jean-Pierre Jeunet. 2001. Film.

Carlson, Allen. “Aesthetics and the Environment.” Aesthetics and the Environment- The Appreciation of Nature, Art and Architecture. 2000. 151-176. Print.

Lost in Translation. Dir. Sofia Coppola. 2003. Film.

#Amelie #lost in translation #Scarlett Johansson #bill murray #Landscapes

Walkabout

Although Landscapes in Cinema has included a wide range of films commenting on place, a hole exists where Walkabout (Nicolas Roeg, 1971) might fit. In "Mapping of Cinematic Places: Icons, Ideology, and the Power of (Mis)representation," Jeff Hopkins comments on film as a “semiotic landscape,” suggesting that films ought to capture something more complex than only physicality when depicting landscapes. A film like Walkabout illustrates his points nicely, because Hopkins’s believes the geography of film requires the cooperation of “cinematic space/place” with deeper messaging (Hopkins 3). Hopkins uses this frame to remap landscapes in film on both a physical level and in a cultural sense. In Nicolas Roeg’s brilliant film, Walkabout, characters’ entire lives are shifted upon entering a new and challenging landscape, the physical aspect of their surrounds shifts their cultural views. Not only does Walkabout have important suggestions to make about physical landscapes, the story weaves cultural metaphors into the places they venture through. Hopkins describes three types of signs (that are displayed in Walkabout), including icons, indexes, and symbols. These filmic tools help to direct readers to his suggestion of understanding landscapes. Using these filmic categorizations, Walkabout examines the contrast between the implications of the city and the desert. In Walkabout, personalities from two very different worlds (two young people from urbanized England and a traditional aboriginal man) tread interweaving paths as desperation ensues in the Australian outback. Although the story begins in a big city in Australia, the urban characters’ surroundings quickly change as they find themselves exploring a different world.

The film opens up with a string of symbols. A teenage schoolgirl sits in her classroom practicing her linguistic skills. The women in her class chant sounds in a rhythmic way (suggesting their desire to conform to societal norms). The imagery cuts between shots of people on their way to work. The people move in sync, as if their movements have been choreographed (symbolic of corporatism). Man made buildings demand identities as their presence contributes to the makeup of a cityscape. The imagery of the buildings represents structure literally built from the ground up by the inhabitants of the city landscape. The city is highly populated (highlighting the urgency that comes along with living in a metropolitan world). These images assign a mood to the city, focusing on movement and coordination amongst the brainwashed members of the society. By constructing a cityscape that represents the societal agendas of Australia, Roeg painted a picture of the characters’ lifestyles.

Early in the film, Walkabout pivots towards a new understanding of what life could be for the “civilized” English children living in urban Australia. A butcher cutting meat in his shop is juxtaposed against an aborigine hacking a wild animal into pieces in the outback. Both instances are moments that use a tool called index, suggesting the various attitudes towards violence in two very different cultures. An index allows a filmmaker to make a “causal connection” that audiences can easily put together (Hopkins 52). Hopkins uses the presence of smoke as an indicator of fire, for example (Hopkins 52). In this scene the cutting of meat suggests that although eating animals might be natural, the process of killing might be contrived in the modern, cosmopolitan world.

In the next scene the children’s father drives the family far into the Australian outback, their journey feeling more and more daunting as they venture further into the desert landscape. The children seem confused as to their father’s intentions as the car comes to a halt. The radio raves conservative ideas about how people ought to be civilized and elegant (another symbol representative of the life the children have always known and been socialized to adhere to). The children unload from the vehicle. The father looks at his daughter’s legs in a way that seems sexual as she unfolds a picnic on the ground. In the distance, the little boy plays with toy army men (symbolic of violence and masculinity in his culture). As the little boy shoots his water gun into his mouth the plastic becomes an icon. Because the gun has a physical resemblance to a real gun, the audience can assume foreshadowing through the icon. The father pulls out a gun, aiming at the children and then shoots himself. The girl, realizing the danger of the situation, grabs her brother and runs away as the car blows up (an index representative of the turbulence about to unfold in their lives). The children are alone and defenseless in the Australian outback, unaware of how they will survive.

Early in the film, the girl tells her brother that even though their situation may be precarious, he should not “act like a tramp.” Her society’s expectations are so ingrained in her, that even in the worst of situations she feels a need to act proper (yet again suggesting the cultural implications of her city landscape). Even among a non-judging nature, she does not allow herself to dirty her clothes, or take off her pressed jacket (a symbol of her connection to civility). As she makes her way through the hot sand she continues to practice her voice lessons (neglecting the idea that the outback does not care whether or not she can speak properly). This moment of symbolism reminds audiences of the landscape she has left behind. As the girl attempts to maintain the expectations of her old landscape while engaged in a new one, the contrast makes her behavior seem stranger.

As the situation becomes increasingly grim, the children begin to understand the complexities of the landscape around them. They know that the dessert can be hostile (the heat beats down on them as they force themselves to go on). Food is difficult to come by, and scenes of the little boy licking salt from his sister’s hand indicate their desperation. The filmmaker features close-ups of animals on the hunt, living a lifestyle of “kill or be killed.” The animals look like monsters (an instance of icon in the film), their bodies exaggerated in size. It seems that the children might need to mimic the animals’ approaches to survival, or they will not make it out of the desert.

When the children find a small oasis in the middle of the outback, they come to understand their landscape in a new way. That day the children bathe in the water of spring, hydrate themselves, eat berries from the tree and enjoy the presence of the peaceful birds (juxtaposed to the devious looking animals of the desert). For the children, nature has the potential to be lush and full of life, while remaining dangerous and harsh at the same time. A marmot stiffs at the boy in his sleep, and in that moment he is one with nature and his landscape. Snakes hover over the children in the tree. They do not symbolize danger, but instead represent their part of a larger scheme of nature. When the spring dries up, the children are suddenly back to fighting for their lives, until a young aborigine comes to their rescue. The girl cannot communicate with him (as she cannot understand why he does not speak her language), yet the boy is quickly able to converse with the aborigine (he is not yet as set in his ways as his older sister). The aborigine becomes the children’s guide and savior, as they begin to make their way towards home. In this instance, symbols connote meanings that audiences must learn, like “words and rituals (Hopkins 52).” When the children come to learn the significance of the aboriginal traditional behaviors, it helps them to navigate out of the outback. Not only is the coding learned, but the film’s audience equates this transition with the children’s departure from a strict, conservative society.

During their time with the aborigine, he kills animals for them to eat. The aborigine is a representation of a new kind of violence, a necessary kind of violence that ensures survival. He has a certain respect for the animals he kills (unlike what the children have been exposed to in the past). It seems as if the animals and the aborigine work together to complete a natural cycle. In one important scene, the aborigine cooks an animal for the children to eat. Meanwhile, the girl begins to lose her inhibitions as she plays on a tree, allowing herself to participate with the wild landscape. She allows her skirt to fall down, exposing some of her body to the aborigine. The cracks in the tree look like a woman’s vagina (another instance of icon), and for the first time, the girl is comfortable participating with nature, her sexuality, and herself out of the context of stringent, structured society. As Hopkins would advocate, her landscape is allowing her to participate in a different cultural structure.

At the end of the film, the children make their way home, but the girl has a fantasy of the time she spent with the aborigine, realizing that she shares a partnership with nature that has changed her. As Roeg constructed Walkabout he successfully indicated the cultural implications of a physical place through imagery. HIs use of indexes, icons, and symbols helped him to reach a place of beautiful metaphor in depicting the larger suggestions behind living in different spaces.

WORKS CITED

Hopkins, Jeff. "Mapping of Cinematic Places: Icons, Ideology, and the Power of (Mis)representation." Place, Power, Situation, and Spectacle: A Geography of Film. 1994. 3-65. Print.

Walkabout. Dir. Nicolas Roeg. 1971. Film.

#Walkabout #Film #Drama #Landscapes #Nature

alexslotkinlandscape-blog

In his article, Chris Lukinbeal argues that landscapes are used as one of four functions, them being space, place, metaphor and spectacle. Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s 2001 film, Amelie, with its romanticized notion of Paris fits the function of place, and Sophia Coppola’s 2004 film Lost...

erchappel

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) by Michel Gondry is a story of two people, Joel played by Jim Carrey and Clementine played by Kate Winslet, who appear to be very different people that meet and end up falling in love. The story takes a twist when you find out that the two...

Creative Project

Writing Place: https://vimeo.com/65306631

Calirado Painting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLUCc0yDMLw

Michael Hoff

Landscape In Cinema

April 31, 2013

Space, Place and Scale

My motivation for this film was to define places within spaces I normally would not. Specifically, I wanted to define place within the space of white sheets of paper. Typically, when I think of places I think of cities, countries or locations I have been that carry personal value to me, such as my house. Though, throughout this course I have learned that spaces and places can be endlessly large or small. For that reason, my motivation during the making of this film to see how an obvious space- blank paper- is made into place. Further, I expanded on this idea to see how another blatant space, an empty room, could be made into a place. Although, because I was allowed to make a film for this assignment I aimed to make space into place in a way that is not possible in real life simply because I could. That is when I decided that I wanted to make the space of the paper construct the place the room would become. The purpose of this idea is that spaces and places affect each other in real life but it goes largely unnoticed. I also attempted to edit the video in a way that would reflect the idea of drawing objects in order to give a place meaning. I used an effect labeled, “sketch,” in order to make the video appear as a drawing of place as well. In class, we viewed an example of the interplay between space and place when we watched Running Fence by Albert and David Maysles. In this film there was a dispute between the farmers of Marin and The Maysles because each party disagreed had different appreciations of the farmland. To the inhabitants of Marin the farmland is “sacred,” but to the Maysles the land is an open space that they believe should be artistically developed (Class Notes). Similarily, the shed I filmed my video in was a space to me because I had no previous experiences within it. Although, to those who spent time in that shed before me, and specifically those who painted it, the shed was a place that they had given value through their art. Therefore, my inspiration was to make the shed a place with value to myself by changing it. Namely, the value the shed has to me now is that it is the location where I filmed my final project for this class.

In Tim Cresswell’s article, “Introduction: Defining Place,” he claims that place, “at a basic level, is space invested with meaning in the context of power” (Cresswell, 12). Accordingly, the shed in my film begins as a space because I had no value or experiences in the shed before I made this video. Although, the graffiti in the shed contributes to the value I have of this place because, “place is ‘what takes place ceaselessly, what contributes to history in a specific context through the creation and utilization of a physical setting” (Pred/Cresswell, 35). Essentially, the shed would have a different meaning to me if graffiti did not encompass the walls. Though, in additon to the artistic value of the paint, I wanted to use visible power, namely power of the pen and paper to create objects to invest this space with power. Although the shed was only a space to me when I began making this film, “this anonymous space has a history - it meant something to other people” (Cresswell, 5). With that in mind, the question of how I could make this space a place is what my film seeks to answer. Cresswell states that, “A common strategy is to make the space say something about you,” and that is exactly what I did (Cresswell, 5). I engaged in place-making activities in order to leave my mark and instill personal value in the shed. In the process of making space into place Cresswell states that usually, “You add your own possessions, rearrange the furniture within the limits of the space, put your own posters on the wall, arrange a few books purposefully on the desk” (Cresswell, 2). In my film, I cleaned out the entire shed and moved a table into it. Then, I put an apple, a chicken, an iphone, a scooter, and a television inside the shed. Although these objects remained there only temporarily I also filmed myself putting these objects in the shed. By both placing these objects in the shed and filming myself place them in there so I added my own possessions to the space, which as Cresswell describes, is how, “space is turned into place. Your place” (Cresswell, 2). Further, I applied the same idea to the pieces of paper upon which I drew. Before I drew objects upon the blank sheets, they were merely empty spaces. Though, once I drew my possessions upon them I engaged in what Cresswell describes as a common method of turning space into place. This common method, as I mention above, is making, “the space say something about you” (Cresswell, 5).

One of the reasons I made this video, which I did not mention above, is because after this class I realized that I had already made a video about turning space into place. The video, called Calirado Painting, features Jorge Rivas constructing a canvas and then painting the Golden Gate Bridge atop the Flatiron Mountains. In Writing Place, Jorge’s canvas,much like the blank sheets of paper and the walls of the shed before they were graffiti’d, begins as a space. Although from the beginning to the end of the film this space becomes a place. First, Jorge paints the Flatiron Mountains on the canvas, which are significant to Jorge and I because we live in Boulder. Then, Jorge paints the Golden Gate Bridge atop the Flatiron Mountains which is personally significant because I am from the bay area and often travelled across this bridge when I lived there. Lastly, the painting is hung on a wall in my house. This is significant because it affects the place that is my house in the same way that the objects in Writing Place affect the shed. In both videos, the paintings and the objects contribute to the value of the places they are within.

In the process of making Writing Place I learned about the various factors that can affect the value I have of a given place. The first of these factors is lighting. After cleaning piles of leaves and garbage out of my neighbor’s shed, and then setting up my camera equipment, I began filming only to realize that the graffiti was not visible on camera. I could have filmed the video without the walls being visible, but in doing so I would have depleted the historical value of the shed and thus taken away from all of the other people who have helped give the shed artistic meaning. Therefore, I was forced to postpone the filming until another day when lights were available for me to use. Second, I had a striking realization when mopping the ground of the shed the next day. As I was mopping the ground I noticed a centipede trying to avoid my mop. This sight caused me to think about the significance of the shed was to this insect. To myself at that time, the shed was a space I was hoping to make into a place by making my film. Although to the centipede, that shed was a “sacred space” (Class Notes). It is the place where the majority of experiences in that centipede’s life had likely occurred. And much like spaces and places can be infinitely small or large it struck me that the organisms who define places and spaces can also infinitely vary in size. I realized that in the same way that I engage in, “place-making activities,” so do insects, animals and even microorganisms (Cresswell, 5). In planning this video I wanted to explore the scale of space and place through blank pieces of paper, but in the process of making it I became more aware of the vastness of this scale than I had previously been.

In conclusion, I have many questions regarding the interactions between space and place that humans have, but I am more perplexed by the processes that animals, insects and other organisms engage in to turn space into place. One question I could not avoid pondering is what one would see if he or she were to mount a GoPro camera on a bird, tiger or any other animal. It is obvious to me that humans often use art to convert spaces into places, but after seeing that centipede I wonder what methods other organisms utilize to give spaces value. Do they use art like Jorge or those who painted the shed? For example, ants build anthills much like humans build houses, but I am now curious what lines the inner walls of these hills. Ants may be to simple to apply such complex characteristics to their given places, but, because I pondered upon the scale of place and space when making this film I cannot dismiss the idea that all organisms on earth engage in “place-making” activities (Cresswell, 5). I have absolutely no idea how small humans are in the scale of the universe although I do know that humans engage in this process. Therefore, I would assume that smaller organisms do as well. When making this film, I almost got tired of thinking about the various ways humans make space into place because most of these methodologies are well known and written about. After seeing the centipede, I wanted to understand how other creatures engage in this process. In D.W. Meing’s article, “The Beholding Eye: Ten Versions of the Same Thing,” he quotes Lippard who states that when people come into contact with individuals from different places, “this should give us a better understanding of difference” (Lippard/Meing, 49). I now want to apply this idea toward not only people, but other organisms with the hope that an understanding of the differences between humans and other creatures will help me to create films that are unique.

Works Cited

Class Notes. “Space v. Place.” Landscape In Cinema. University of Colorado at Boulder

Cresswell, Tim. “Introduction: Defining Place.” Place: A Short Introduction(2004): 1-16. Indiana University RAD. Web. 18 Apr. 2013.

Meing, D.W. “The Beholding Eye: Ten Versions of The Same Scene.” The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes (1979): 1-9. Indiana University RAD. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.

Ron Fricke has created an admirable documentary movie that shows the beauty of nature and man-made structures in many places such as Egypt, Spain, United Kingdom and United States of America. Even though Chronos (1985) is a documentary movie, it does not have a story to tell. I think the movie major concern is to show the magnificence landscape around the world. It is a non-verbal movie. There is no sound from the places in the movie, but Fricke used a unique music, which was done by Michael Stearns. Ron probably spent a few years to create this movie because he has used time-lapse technique, which needs several hours to shot a few minutes. Time-laps is simply taking pictures of the same place for several hours, days, weeks, months, or even years to show something that cannot be seen in daily life such as clouds’ movements. These pictures can be displayed in sequences to show what it calls “Time-laps”. I like the smooth movement of the camera with the time-laps. I also noticed that he has used ultra-wide angle lens in his movie, which gives the movie different perspective. This type of lens makes the objects bigger as the camera get closer to the object. When I was watching Chronos, I remembered Samsara (2011) and Baraka (1992). It is not a surprise that Ron Fricke directed Samsara and Baraka since the same techniques were used in filming these two movies. Ron Fricke shows the beauty of several places around the world, using different techniques and a unique sound.

Fricke’s style in filming Chronos is time-laps footage or moving the camera from one side to another. I noticed that he used the time-laps to show specific objects through time to give the image life because if he just showed a single frame video, it would be just a beautiful landscape without a life. As an example, when the movie shows the Stonehenge in England, Ron used time laps to show the clouds movements. However, if he did not use time laps, it would be a nice footage but since there were nothing moving in that area, it would not be great way to film.

He used the camera movements in other places to show an area instead of specific objects such as when he shows Sedona in Arizona, or Death Valley. I think he wants to present the whole area instead of just a specific place. That is the reason he used camera movements rather than the time-laps.

There are some occasions where he used both camera movements and time-laps techniques instead of just one. I found that incredible. When he filmed Mont-St.-Michel in France, the seawater was moving and at the same time the camera was moving. I could not understand how he moved the camera smoothly, and still got the time-laps effects. Fricke uses camera movements, time-laps techniques or both of them to show the nature attractions from a different perspective.

In addition to the visual techniques, Fricke manipulates the sounds and the motion of the footage to give the audience a different view of the landscape. For instance, when the people in Grand Central in New York City were moving fast with a fast soundtrack, which give the viewer different feeling because of that.

Does Chronos have environmental aesthetic? “Aesthetic is the area of philosophy that concerns our appreciation of things as they affect our senses, and especially as they affect them in a pleasing way”(Carlson, 2000, p.2). I believe that Chronos has its own way of attract the viewers because it shows outstanding landscapes with some movements within the frame. These landscapes shots let us value the places in the movie because of their beauty. Carlson says that our appreciation is not only limited to the nature, but it is also involve our appreciation to the view from a street or marketplace (p.2). Carlson displays some civilization landscapes that are amaze the viewers and make them value them more such as the view from the top of Paris, and many other roads in different palaces. Chronos has many environmental aesthetics that are appreciable.

In addition to the environmental aesthetic, the terms, place and space, were discussed by Cresswell (2004). Does Chronos show places or spaces? Cresswell suggests that a place is a space but when it has a meaning for a person, it is a place for him or her. When we hear New York City, we think about many places in that city, he says. But he thinks that when we see 40.46N 73.58W, it does not have a value for many people. When I first saw the pyramids in Chronos, I thought about Egypt. As a viewer, since I know this old place that was built thousands years ago, I consider it as a place. Chronos shows many landscapes that consider as a place because of the meaning, which they have for the viewers.

How signs are operate in Chronos? In Chronos, there are landscapes where we can see real buildings in New Work and Paris, and real natural landscapes where the sky and the clouds. These are not set up places since it is a documentary movie to document real places. However, what we see in the movie is just a reflection of the light in the real landscape. Hopkins (1994) suggests that what the audience experience is not real, but it is “the impression of reality”(p.52). Since Chronos shows real places such as New York City, the audience will be able to expect what to see in the city. Therefore, the city is iconic sign in this sense. The actual things in the city such as cars, roads and traffic lights are index because the audience will be able to recognize these objects. Moreover, the natural and civilization landscapes in Chronos have a mystery about them because some spectators do not know all the deep culture about the objectives and their relationship to the landscapes. Therefore, these landscapes could be simplistic because as an audience I do not know even the name of some places. Baraka has icons, symbols and indices signs depending on who are watching.

Fricke has also other films that have some similarities and differences with Chronos such as Baraka and the most recent one Samsara.

The first difference that can be noticed in filming Baraka and Samsara is that Fricke used a long shot lens instead of the wide-angle lens, which was used to film Chronos. The long shot lens shows more details in the images, which can be seen throughout the movie. While the wide-angle lens shows a wide range of view that gives the spectators the feeling of amazement, but it does not care about the details in the landscapes, which I think it was not important in filming Chronos.

All the three movies are non-verbal and non-narrative documentary movies, and each one of them has its unique music. I think that if the movie can shows get the spectaculars’ emotions and attention to engage with the movie, it is a good movie. Since Samsara documents the people’s cultures and their relationship to the land, Fricke used a music that represents the culture and let the spectators more engage with what they see. For instance, when the movie shows Makah in Saudi Arabia, the call for the prayer can be heard. I think that teach the audiences about the culture in that specific land. On the other hand, Chronos and Baraka do not have a specific soundtrack for each land. It was one soundtrack, but he manipulates the sound according to the motion of the footage. For example, as the people were moving faster in New York, the sounds rhythm was increased.

I think Samsara and Baraka have a different theme compere to Chronos. When Fricke filmed Samsara and Baraka, the people and their relationship with the land are important. The people even might be more important than the land. Both Samsara and Baraka shows the people practicing their beliefs and religions such as when Samsara shows the Muslims in the mosque, or the Jewish. Most of the shot of he people are on focus and the motions of the scenes are in normal motion. The time-laps technique is not seen as it is in Chronos. On the other hand,the people are not important in because most of the people are not on focus and cannot be recognized because of the fast motion shots.Fricke main theme in Samsara and Baraka are to show people’s cultures and beliefs in different parts of the worlds while Chronos’ main theme is to show the beauty of the lands and the ancient civilizations.

Fricke creates a pica of art called Chronos where he used time-laps technique, camera movements’ technique and a special soundtrack to share with the people his perspective of viewing the beauty of the world; while he creates Samsara and Baraka to show the cultures in different places by using telephoto lens to get more detailed images.

References

Carlson, A. (2000). Introduction: aesthetics and the environment. In Aesthetics and the Environment- The Appreciation of Nature, Art and Architecture (xvii-xxi). New York: Routledge.

Cresswell, T. (2004). Introduction: Defining Place. In Place: A Short Introduction (1-14). Oxford: Blackwell.‏

Hopkins, J. (1994). Mapping of Cinematic Places: Icons, Ideology, and the power of (Mis)representation. In Place, Power, Situation, and Spectacle: A geography of Film (47-68). ‪United States of America: Rowman & Littlefield. ‏

erchappel

Geography of the Body(1943) by Marie Menken and Willard Maas vs. Reverbody(1971) by Ann Severson

We recently watched the films Geography of the Body and Riverbody which both used the human body as a landscape. I wanted to write about these two films because I thought it was...

erchappel

The Syrian Bride

The Syrian Bride is a foreign film that uses its landscape to help portray the conflict between Israel and Syria. I felt that to this point in the semester The Syrian Bride was the best example of landscape being used as a character. As you watch this film you...

The Changing Environment: Methods of Persuasion

Aided by technological advancement, the environmental sciences have made significant discoveries in recent years. The ecological landscape is now center-stage, and forecasts of its destructive potential in the coming years range from negligible to catastrophic. Since the 1980s, the main prerogative of the science community at large has been to make the public aware of their role in global warming, and how it will impact them in the future. Film in particular has proven invaluable in communicating these ideas, but science is a notoriously dry subject matter for many viewers. To remedy this, the genre of environmentally-conscious movies has grown into a diverse and rapidly changing one as filmmakers continuously adjust the format and feel of their films. Documentarians in particular have approached our changing environment in a range of different ways. Some depict our traditional landscape as becoming an increasingly inhospitable one, wrought with danger and unpredictability as in the apocalyptic presentation of the 2008 Tohuku Earthquake in Witness: Disaster in Japan (Jacobs, Greg. 2011), and others approach the landscape from the human perspective, for example Manufactured Landscapes (Baichwal, Jennifer. 2006) which incorporates a number of cultural elements to paint a more interpretive, but no less true picture of our environment's transformations. While both films are void of narration while still rich with culture and information, Witness: Disaster in Japan indexes and capitalizes on primal emotion, most notably fear and aggression, whereas Manufactured Landscapes transcends it, using editing and composition in its place to address not just natural disaster, but social and economic catastrophe as well.

Both Witness: Disaster in Japan and Manufactured Landscapes offer no specific argument on the nature of the changing environment, yet the imagery present in both clearly depicts the environment as the main protagonist, and its inhabitants as mere secondary elements. In Manufactured Landscapes photographer Edward Burtynsy and director Jennifer Baichwal use composition and color to depict vast expanses of environmental decay laden with the human workforce responsible for abusing it. The landscape here has a distinct “face and a voice”, and perhaps most tragically, “its a face and a voice that has nothing to say to us,” (Prager, Brad. Landscape of the Mind: The Indifferent Earth in Werner Herzog’s Films, 2010). But despite the landscape’s silence, one can almost feel its desperation and disgust. Its here where Manufactured Landscapes imparts an insightful commentary on the changing climate, a landscape devastated by the most populous country in the world’s rapid industrialization. In contrast, Witness: Disaster in Japan operates on a much less subtle aesthetic concept, the use of violent and disturbing imagery and sound.

In Witness: Disaster in Japan, Tokyo and its surrounding coastal cities are depicted through eye-witness footage shot by citizens themselves. There is no formal narration, no historical references, and very little retrospective dialogue. Instead editors John Farbrother and Karla Svatos use the testimonies present behind the cell-phone and consumer camera footage in realtime, a collection of screams, gasps, and desperate pleas as the prolific tsunami breaks land and proceeds to decimate tens of thousands of homes and offices. The footage is indexed and edited chronologically, presented with time-stamps and nothing else. The makers of the film flaunt this level of realism early in the documentary, “This is the story of the earthquake, and it’s deadly aftermath, as captured by those lived through it,” but, without a reflective narration to add insight to the seemingly instantaneous destruction present in Witness: Disaster in Japan, the film prohibits itself from using any legitimate rhetoric, and operates solely on its audience’s “pornographic interest in real people, real death, real destruction and real suffering, especially of ‘others’” (Godmillow, Jill. What's Wrong with the Liberal Documentary? 1991).

This faux-documentary style in Witness: Disaster in Japan is identical to the cinema veritè and ‘pornography of the real’ filmmakers who, according to Herzog, “resemble tourists who take pictures amid ancient ruins of facts” (Herzog, Werner. Minnesota Declaration, 1999). Yet, by Jill Godmillow and Werner Herzog’s standards, Manufactured Landscapes, equally void of narration and reflectivity, is just as guilty of masking its pornographic elements, “by assurances that the film delivers only the actually existing real — thus sincere truths that we need to know about” (Godmillow, Jill. What's Wrong with the Liberal Documentary? 1991). The true contrast between these two films, and the reason that despite their similar styles, Manufactured Landscapes achieves an intellectual depth that Witness: Disaster in Japan does not, lies in their underlying respect and appreciation of the natural landscape both try to capture.

There are no explanations in Witness: Disaster in Japan. We see the tsunami as the helpless victims did, a massive ocean wave spilling into the roads and buildings they held dear to them. The cause of the catastrophe is as mysterious to the viewer as the sight of a meteor barreling across the sky last January was to the Russians who captured it on video. The audience experiences the landscape at its most superficial level, and the reactions of those it hurt the most in their most primal states. As viewers we are imparted with their “aloofness.... and emptiness between [them] and nature” (Carlson, Allen. Introduction: Aesthetics and the Environment, 2000), as they desperately try to stop it. It is reality that Witness: Disaster in Japan presents to us, but it’s only an instant of it, the very moment where a threat is presented and the protagonist reacts. Manufactured Landscapes on the other hand not only shows us the instant of destruction, images of a gigantic off-shore crane pulverizing the ocean floor for example, but the resulting cultural decay. We see factory workers living in deplorable conditions, torn from their families towards the allure of a consistent income. We see a burgeoning Chinese middle-class who actively reject tradition for western consumerism. We see an entire village tearing down their own homes for a check from a local company who wants to develop the land, and we see the future of that land as a realtor presents a ‘city of the future’ capable of housing over a million people. This is Carlson’s postmodern model, displaying “the diversity and the richness of the cultural overlay [over nature]” (Carlson, Allen. Introduction: Aesthetics and the Environment, 2000), the motivations and aspirations of more than a billion Chinese citizens from all walks of life, and why they treat their environment the way they do.

And so, Witness: Disaster in Japan and Manufactured Landscapes both succeed in communicating the changing ways our environment interacts with us. In the case of Witness: Disaster in Japan, that interaction is fraught with destruction, helplessness, and unadulterated fear. Its message is that the natural landscape is powerful, mysterious, unpredictable, and unstoppable. Manufactured Landscapes also shows us a destroyed landscape, but it explains why it’s so. It includes the human factor in its descriptive compositions filled with environmental decay, and leaves us as an audience enlightened as a result.

Witness: Disaster in Japan. Ed. John Farbrother and Karla Svatos. Exec. Prod. Greg Jacobs. Prod. Stacy Wolff and Sarah Pagura. National Geographic (2011).

Manufactured Landscapes. Dir. Baichwal, Jennifer. Perf. Burtynsky, Edward. Foundry Films and National Film Board of Canada (2006).

Godmillow, Jill. "What's Wrong with the Liberal Documentary?" What's Wrong with the Liberal Documentary? University of Notre Dame (1999).

Prager, Brad. "Landscape of the Mind: The Indifferent Earth in Werner Herzog’s Films." Ed. Graeme Harper and Jonathan Rayner. Cinema and Landscape: Film, Nation and Cultural Geography (2010): 89-102.

Carlson, Allen. “Introduction: Aesthetics and the Environment.”Aesthetics and the Environment – The Appreciation of Nature, Art and Architecture (2000): xii-15.

Herzog, Werner. “Minnesota Declaration.” Truth and fact in documentary cinema (1999).

#manufactured landscapes #witness: disaster in japan

Lightscapes (Film I think should be included)

URL: https://vimeo.com/7990690

Michael Hoff

Lightscapes

The film Lightscapes, by Peter H. Chang shows how light can be used to give a geographical area new meaning. Chang sets up hundreds of projectors in scenic areas and then projects geometric light patterns upon these areas. In this way he converts landscapes to what he calls “lightscapes” and offers the viewers an aesthetic appreciation of what landscapes are as well as what landscapes can be. Additionally, he has viewers in the film hold lanterns so that they they too can be active in his art. Chang utilizes time lapses and pans that emphasize how places are continuously developing meaning because it shows how the meaning people contrive from the bridge in the film changes once night falls and the projectors are able to display the various colors upon the landscape. So in this sense Chang depicts landscape, and place, as a cultural process. He only has a temporary impact upon the landscape so that he does not insult or hurt it but rather adds a new dimension to it that causes people to view it as a spectacle. In summary, this film emphasizes the human geography of place. Much like graffiti contributes to the meaning of places, the lighting of places also gives landscapes within them meaning. Although lighting is often unnoticed in peoples’ defining of place Chang uses projectors and vivid lighting to emphasize the effects of lighting upon peoples experiences, feelings, and associations and to redefine the thirdspace of the landscape in is film.

The first class concept that relates to this film is the idea of landscape as an aesthetic (Meing, 46). Every single landscape can be admired from different perspectives. As D.W. Meing says, “Landscape becomes a mystery holding meanings we strive to grasp but cannot reach, and the artist is a kind of gnostic delving into these mysteries in his own private ways but trying to take us with him and to show us what he has found” (Meing, 46). In our example, the bridge is what Meing describes as a mystery. The bridge holds its own meaning, as that of something that enables people to cross a body of water, but from Chang’s perspective, the bridge has a very different meaning. Chang engages in what Meing describes as seeking “a meaning which is not explicit in the ordinary forms” (Meing, 46). Accordingly, the meaning Chang seeks in the landscape he depicts is not explicit, or obvious, until he projects light upon the bridge. Ordinarily, the bridge’s meaning is not aesthetic but is instead an object within a landscape that allows people to get to their destinations. In contrast, in the filmLightscapes, Chang redefines the bridge’s meaning, as well as that of the trees around it changing the visual aspects of the bridge and the objects around it. Specifically, he uses the geometric and bright colored projections to convert everyday objects into art. And although many may have an artistic appreciation for trees and bridges without Chang’s projections, it seems as if most people do not appreciate the aesthetics of such objects because they have become common throughout landscapes. Chang’s depiction of the bridge is very unique which makes it noticeable to those who see it. The importance of each type of appreciation people have for such a landscape is that, “Identification of these different bases for the variations in interpretations of what we see is a step toward more effective communication” (Meing, 47). The interpretation that Chang has is one that is widely unseen but for that reason is more important so that people can find new meaning in the landscape. If people can see and understand his interpretation it offers people a better understanding of those who are different from themselves and thus a common ground for communication.

The idea of landscape as aesthetic is closely related to the idea of place. Pred argues that places “are never ‘finished’ but always ‘becoming’” (Meing, 35). In this sense the landscape that Chang uses in his art was not finished when the bridge was originally built, and nor was it finished when Chang projected his “lightscapes” upon it. Rather, the bridges and trees within this landscape are always “becoming,” due to the efforts of individuals like Chang (Meing, 35). The place that Lightscapes depicts is given meaning by those who constructed the bridge, those who use the bridge, and those, such as Chang, who give the bridge a new context, “through the creation and utilization of a physical setting” (Pred/Meing, 35). The structuration theory states that people inhabit material landscapes they had little say in constructing but instead, “negotiate in order to live” (Meing, 35). In this film Chang is negotiating the material landscape in front of him- the bridges and trees- so that he can live as an artist in that landscape. In the same way, the images of people crossing the bridge and cleaning the bridge at the beginning of the film display how those individuals negotiate with the same material landscape that Chang does, but in a much different and more common way. Although, it is important for viewers to realize that both Chang and the individuals shown using the bridge contribute to the defining of this place. They both emphasize the idea that, “places are never finished but always the result of processes and practices” (Pred/Meing, 37). The relationships that all individuals have with a landscape contribute to the construction of that space as a place. The people who clean the bridge make it enjoyable to use. The people who cross the bridge cause traffic and make it crowded. And Chang, who depicts colorful projections upon the landscape, makes it aesthetic. Depending on what individuals choose to focus on in a given landscape is what dictates that person’s conceptualization and impact upon that place. As such, place, “needs to be understood as an embodied relationship with the world. Places are constructed by people doing things and in this sense are never ‘finished’ but are constantly being performed” (Meing, 37). Place is much more than a geographical location or a description of a landscape but is a construction based upon how different people interact with that landscapes in order to define the places that landscapes exist within.

Because place is never finished it is important to understand the idea of thirdspace (Meing, 35). In the trialectics of spatiality, “Thirdspace is lived space and it interrupts a distinction between perceived space and spatial practices” (Lippard/Meing, 49). The lived space in Lightscapes is the bridge that is used by inhabitants of that area. As said above, people are shown cleaning it, walking on it and Chang is shown changing it. These are all different ways that people negotiate with the landscape through different spatial practices. Meing breaks down peoples’ interactions with space into two categories. There are those who move within a place and those who are still within a place. In the film Lightscapes, everyone who uses the landscape, before Chang’s projections, is shown moving in the beginning of the film. On the contrary, Chang is shown as remaining still. This is shown by the movement of people across the bridge in opposition to Chang’s motionless. He is not literally motionless, but is interacting with the landscape over the course of hours by changing the it with his projections. He uses his projectors to enhance the landscape so that it functions as a place that is not only meant to facilitate movement but also a place to be marveled at. In Meing’s reading, Lippard says that “when we move we often come into contact with those who haven’t moved around, or have come from different places. This should give us a better understanding of difference” (Lippard/Meing, 49). Chang has a vastly different understanding of the landscape than those around him, and when they come into contact with Chang they share in his understanding of the landscape. They go from moving and experiencing the landscape to being still and seeing the landscape as a spectacle like Chang (Class discussion). This shift towards aesthetic appreciation allows these individuals to communicate with Chang and the landscape in a way they previously could not.

Like Meing says in the “The Beholding Eye: Ten Versions of the Same Thing,” Chang aims to give the bridge a new meaning that is not present without his artistic development. To do this, Chang arranges the film sequence so that viewers first see the bridge in its “ordinary form,” and then see the bridge through his artistic perspective. In its “ordinary form,” the bridge is meant as a means of transportation. It is a feature of the landscape that is meant to allow people to cross a body of water. Chang depicts this through a time lapses of people using the bridge and cleaning the bridge. As the structuration theory argues about landscapes, he did not help construct the landscape but instead “negotiates with it,” for a specific purpose, which in this case is to increase its aesthetic appeal. First, the film includes images of Chang setting up his projectors to show the technology that he uses to change the landscape. These images provide the answer to the question of how, or by what means, he changes the landscape. Next, the final images of the film show the landscape in its aesthetic form. These images show the geometric and colorful projections on the bridge and the trees around it. The bridge changes from an object that connects two pieces of land into a spectacle that people appreciate for its visual qualities. Further, people become involved with the landscape when they are shown carrying lanterns. Like Chang, by carrying lanterns the people who use the bridge are changing its lighting and are therefore contributing to its aesthetic qualities. The thirdspace changes because the inhabitants of the landscape are not just moving across it to get to their destinations but instead appreciating it for its aesthetic qualities. In these ways, the thirdspace of the landscape is changed by Chang’s addition of aesthetic qualities to the bridge through colorful projections.

The main idea of this film is that people make landscapes into places based on their individual interpretations of them. Generally, landscapes exist as they were created by nature or individuals during earlier periods but they are never finished. People like Peter Chang apply their own ideas to landscapes in order to give them unique meaning and thus make redefine the places landscapes exist within. These unique meanings, as described by D.W. Meing, connect people within the landscapes. They give landscapes an aesthetic quality that cause most people, who are constantly in movement, to stop and appreciate a given landscape. This is a way that people can relate to one another, which is not achievable when everyone is in constant movement toward different destinations. Our class saw landscapes take aesthetic forms in Rivers and Tides, when Andy Goldsworthy made natural landscapes into aesthetic marvels. Ordinary objects, such as ice and a river, were, “dissolved into the basic language of art: into color, texture, mass, line, position, symmetry, balance, tension” (Meing, 46). The ability of humans to manipulate landscapes so that people take the time to notice them seems to be a large theme in our class. Many features of landscapes, such as skyscrapers, bridges and fields seem to have lost aesthetic significance as societies have developed and these objects have become more common. It seems that artists have figured out ways to enhance the aesthetics of landscapes by applying their individual views to landscapes. As Meing says, “The versions and variations are infinite in this most individualistic view of landscape,” and it takes these various views for others to regain appreciation of landscapes (Meing, 46).

Works Cited

Class Discussion. Space v. Place. 21 Apr. 2013.

Lightscapes. Dir. Peter H. Chang. Vimeo.com. Discovery Channel, n.d. Web. 21 Apr. 2013. <https://vimeo.com/7990690>.

Meing, D.W. “The Beholding Eye: Ten Versions of the Same Thing.” The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes (1979). New York: Oxford University Press. Web. 21 Apr. 2013.

Rivers and Tides / The Cruise, from Ben:

Rivers and tides (Thomas Riedelsheimer 2003) and The Cruise (Bennett Miller 1998) are two documentaries that feature Timothy “Speed” Levitch, and Andy Goldsworthy. Explicitly, the main focus of both films is to follow the protagonists as they make their livings, and use their specific landscapes to aid them in doing so. On an implicit level, the films both follow the ways two different human beings from two different parts of the world move through their respective landscapes, and more importantly how they relate to them along the way. It is clear that the men featured in each film take their relationship with the land much more seriously than the overall population. The directors clearly picked these diverse individuals for a reason. I cant speak for everyone, but the message that I walked away from both films with is this: every human being shares a relationship with the land their environment on a physical and spiritual level whether we realize it or not. To ignore this relationship is simply ignorant, and to acknowledge and accept it as part of our lives can greatly improve the quality of our day-to-day lives. Both films left me wanting to walk to class a little slower, and take the time to appreciate my surroundings, I believe that both directors sought to target the people who ignorantly hurry through their lives by featuring characters who view the world more metaphorically, artistically, and philosophically than most others.

“H.G. Wells once wrote that to tell the history of New York City is to tell the story of the world” This is the quote that Timothy “Speed” Levitch uses to commence each one of his New York City tours. If Levitch’s off-beat personality, and delivery of this quote doesn’t’ do it right away, it wont take long for the passengers to comprehend that they have stepped onto a double-decker bus tour quite different than any they have ever been on before. If one is looking for a purely factual and historical representation of a city, a Timothy Levitch tour is not the tour for them. While Levitch’s off the wall personality catches some people a little off guard, he expresses a tremendous amount of historical knowledge, and ads a metaphysical element to the tour that wont be found on any other bus. One thing is for sure; all of Levitch’s tours leave the passengers walking away with smiles on their faces.

One reading that I felt very applicable to both of these films was Cinematic Landscapes (Chris Lukinbeal, 2005). In this piece, Lukinbeal discusses the concept of using landscape “as a place” (Lukinbeal, 6), as opposed to “Landscape as a Spectacle” (Lukinbeal, 11). According to Higson, when landscape is being used purely as a spectacle, it’s function is to be “Beautiful, and visually pleasant”(Higson 1984,1987). Landscape as a place however, is the element that I found to be a very strong theme utilized by both Miller, and Riedelsheimer. “Place provides a narrative realism by grounding a film to a particular location’s regional sense of place and history.”(Lukinbeal 6). In Cinematic landscapes, Lukinbeal quotes Bernard Nietschmann (1993). According to Nietschmann, there are four ways for a film to successfully convey a strong sense of place to the viewer. When watching The Cruise and Rivers and Tides, I found the use of techniques number two and three to be very evident. Technique number two involves using several diverse signifiers of place, rather than just the everyday ones. This allows the viewer to more easily understand and comprehend the “everyday complexities” (Lukinbeal 7) of place.In The Cruise, part of Levitch’s everyday job is to provide people with a sense of place in New York City. As a viewer of the film, one has the ability to perceive the world through Levitch’s un-orthodox perspective. This provides the viewer with very diverse signifiers of place. Signifiers are sometimes so extremely diverse that they can be comical. For example, while walking down the street, Levitch stops to examine the meticulousness of the white terra cotta building. This was the only building Louis Sullivan designed for New York City. He discusses very minute details that would usually go unnoticed, such as the importance of terra cotta in New York architecture, the strong vertical launch in the façade of the building, the way the material reflects the light, and so on. He then goes on to explain his relationship to the building, and the effect that that landscape has on him.

“When I see terra cotta like this, it just makes me feel like I'm senselessly running through a meadow, or high grassland area nude, chasing a woman I've never met before who is entirely nude. And it's just the most raw and primordial chase. Two nude human beings running through grassland and marsh area.”(Levitch 19998)

In my opinion, this abstract and rather unusual explanation of how the landscape makes him feel may allow people who don’t think in that way to open up that part of their minds, and perhaps ponder their own relationship to their personal landscape and the effect that land has on them. Just like any other animals, human beings share a connection with this earth; we depend on it, even the manmade structures. This connection is an imperative and undeniable one, and therefore should be acknowledged and appreciated. The poor souls who are “running to work and from themselves” are exactly the ones Levitch seeks to convey his message to (Levitch 1998).

In Rivers and Tides, Andy Goldsworthy not only accentuates some of the typically unnoticed pieces of the landscape, but also allows the viewer to assess the landscape in an entirely new way. Goldsworthy describes why the image of a black hole means so much to him. He believes that black holes are,

“…[An] entrance between which life both ebbs and flows. Looking into a black hole I’ve often described as like looking over the cliff edge. There’s this sense of being drawn into the black as your drawn into the depth, the distance. But the other side of that out of that comes growth also… It’s in the context of a tree that I know is going to come back to life. There’s nothing more potent to me than returning to a black hole that I’ve made and seeing a blade of growth growing out of that black”

Goldsworthy’s black hole themed pieces are greatly diverse signifiers of place for a few reasons. First, they have a symbolic meaning very deeply rooted within them. This directly and physically ties meaning and emotion to the land. Second and more importantly, as natural as these powerful images appear, they would never even exist for people to view and connect with if it wasn’t for Goldsworthy creating them, and the film capturing the images for our viewing pleasure.

Nietschmann’s third technique for successfully conveying a sense of place includes having place be in a position where it is supporting the actor, rather than simply acting as the backdrop. This is clearly the case in both films, due to the fact that both Goldsworthy and Levitch’s occupations depend entirely on the land. Without the specific landscapes featured in each documentary, the lives of the characters and the contents of the films would be entirely different. In the scene where Levitch is walking the Brooklyn Bridge, he further verifies this concept in a different sense. “The best moments in our friendship are the ones where I become the Brooklyn Bridge in my own mind, when I realize we are equals,” not only does Levitch depend on the city for monetary purposes, but he considers himself and the city equals (Levitch 1998). This is something that can be effortlessly felt through the entirety of The Cruise. While Goldsworthy has a more subtle way of expressing himself, he still conveys a strong passion for his homeland. “I came to this place about 12 years ago. All my children have been born here, most of my good friends are here, and I make my best work here. I think those are indications of how strongly I feel for this place.”(Goldsworthy 2003) Both the documentaries, and the lives of both characters revolve entirely around the places they reside in.

In Mappingof Cinematic Places (Jeff Hopkins) Hopkins says, “The fundamental underlying assumption is that humans constitute themselves and their world by and through signs and sign systems of their own making” (Hopkins 5). Andy Goldsworthy very well represents exactly what Hopkins is talking about. Goldsworthy has a few images that are very meaningful to him in his own mind. For example: the egg and the river. Goldsworthy creates these symbols in the physical world around him to solidify these symbols. He also applies these concepts to intangible things, like when he compares the flow of the river to things such as time and life.

Both Directors chose to use a similar style. In Rivers and tides and The cruise, the camera never does anything to draw attention to itself, it just quietly follows the subjects through their day-to-day lives. This technique is comparable to the observational style of documentary, but is different in the sense that the characters talk directly to the camera. I believe the goal of this technique is to create the illusion of objectivity, and persuade the viewers to give the main characters more of their trust. This style generates a comfortable mood for the viewer. It causes them to feel like they are simply hovering over the character, observing raw, unbiased material as opposed to being presented with a manipulated and constructed series of images and sounds.

Rivers and tides and The cruise are two films that both compliment, and counter each other very well. They both are great examples of landscape in cinema, and more specifically, the human-environment relationship. Miller and Riedelsheimer represented this relationship well by conveying landscape as place, and utilizing the observational type documentary style.

Life of Pi, from Sean

“Without Richard Parker, I would of died by now.” Life of Pi is a feature length film made in 2012, based on Yann Martel’s 2001 novel that shows the human will to survive through seemingly insurmountable odds. The storyline of the film is constructed by the interaction of a 16 year-old Indian boy named Piscine Molitor Patel, “Pi” for short, and a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. Pi’s family owned a zoo in India for nearly his whole life. One day, they find out that the land in which the zoo is placed upon will be taken from them. Pi’s father makes arrangements for their whole family and all of the animals they own to board a ship in which the final destination will be Winnipeg, Canada, a location that Pi’s father is certain he will be able to sell some of the animals. Pi is extremely unhappy with this decision, and the fact that he has to say goodbye to a girl he was beginning to develop strong feelings for only made him feel worse. Pi’s family boards the ship and sets sail to Canada. While they are all sleeping one night, Pi is awakened by the sound of thunder and goes outside to experience the magnificent power of the storm. The storm’s power, however, was too much for the boat to handle and caused it to sink. Pi was able to board a lifeboat along with a wounded zebra and soon to come, Richard Parker. Pi’s fascination with the storm allowed him to survive. The rest of Pi’s family, unfortunately, was not as lucky.

Pi soon grasps the harsh reality that his family has drowned, and he is stuck on a small lifeboat with a zebra and a 450-pound Bengal tiger. An orangutan, named Orange Juice, finds the lifeboat and Pi becomes much happier because he has a strong relationship with that particular orangutan. For quite some time, Richard Parker goes unseen. A hyena appears from the boat’s storage space and Pi keeps his distance, knowing it will soon be hungry. The hyena kills the already wounded zebra and shortly after kills Orange Juice as well. In a fit of rage, Pi grabs a knife and screams at the hyena to come at him. Before Pi can do anything, Richard Parker jumps out from the storage area of the boat and kills the hyena effortlessly. In this instance, Richard Parker can be seen as symbolic of Pi’s violent alter ego. This also creates a transition of landscape as place to landscape as space.

When Pi first boarded the lifeboat, it acted as a place to take refuge and escape the sinking ship. Once it was only he and Richard Parker left, that place turned into a space where the action of the film could unfold. This function of landscape is referred to as “Landscape as Metaphor”. “Through the use of metaphor, meaning and ideology are appropriated into landscape, the most common example of which is the attribution of human or social characteristics to landscape” (Lukinbeal p. 13). Since the film is now based around the interaction between Pi and Richard Parker, focus on the physical landscape becomes minimized to the viewer. The boat now represents survival, for its protection from the ocean and supplies it holds, as well as death, because there is a hungry 450-pound tiger aboard. Pi constructs a raft that he attaches to the boat, which allows him to rest in peace. Pi knows, however, that tigers are excellent swimmers and if Richard Parker gets hungry enough, he will go after Pi on the raft. Pi realizes that if he wants to survive, he must learn how to fish so he can feed Richard Parker. This shows that the presence of Richard Parker keeps Pi alert. His fear of Richard Parker proves to be beneficial to his survival and utilization of the landscape.

Pi becomes sick and tired of risking his life every time he needs to collect supplies from the boat. After catching a well-sized tuna, Pi cuts up some chunks of meat and boards the boat in hopes of training Richard Parker. Through use of an assertive attitude, along with a stick that he used to show Richard Parker where the next piece of meat will be, Pi was able to force him back to his part of the boat. Pi’s utilization of the boat as landscape as space can be seen during this scene. The boat turns into “an area in which the drama of the film can unfold” (Lukinbeal p.6), more specifically, a training area in this case. Pi’s care for Richard Parker keeps him busy and keeps his mind moving. The time passes quickly and the focus of this scene is directed towards Pi’s interaction with Richard Parker, rather than the physical landscape.

Weather is another factor that plays a pivotal role in determining the boat’s function as landscape. Cinema was one of the first mediums through which weather could express emotion. When the water is particularly calm, so are Pi and Richard Parker. When the water is choppy, Pi turns the boat parallel to the swells, and blows his whistle at the same time, inducing sea sickness in Richard Parker and creating a conditioned response that makes him associate the sound of the whistle and getting sick. This is beneficial to Pi because it makes Richard Parker afraid of the whistle. This film also exemplifies some geographical strategies. When the sun rises every morning, the boat seems to be in a completely different part of the ocean. This allows the viewer to grasp how much time Pi and Richard Parker have spent together in the middle of the ocean, and also allows us to appreciate the mysterious and transformative nature of the ocean.

The boat became a symbol of Pi’s faith. Whether Richard Parker is real or not is up to the viewer. What constitutes real, however? Is something not real just because you are the only one that can see or feel it? How many people who believe in God do you think have met him? If Pi believed Richard Parker was actually there on the boat with him, then he was. In a sense, Richard Parker was a metaphor for Pi’s survival. Had Pi not been as alert and aware as he was, he would have died. The idea of Richard Parker’s presence kept him going. Richard Parker was part of the landscape, and his behavior facilitated the survival of Pi and himself.

I noticed some similarities between this film and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, as far as the portrayal of landscape and the fear of losing something important. In Eternal Sunshine, Joel and Clementine erase each other from their memory. While all of Joel’s memories that involve Clementine are being removed, he realizes that he does not want to lose those memories. He begins to manipulate the system and learns how to leave the grid in order to save his memories. This reminded me of the scene in Life of Pi when Richard Parker jumped off the boat to catch a fish. Pi went back to the boat while Richard Parker was in the water. With no luck catching any fish, Richard Parker swam back to the boat but could not get climb back in. Pi knew it would be safer to keep him off the boat, but could not resist the urge to save his life. Pi figured out a way to get Richard Parker back on the boat. I connect these two scenes because they both illustrate how hard it is to let go of something that gives meaning to your existence. I believe that the function of landscape in Life of Pi would be very conducive to the style of this class. A tiny lifeboat turned into a structure that functions in different forms as landscape. This film proves that Landscape does not have to be on land. It challenges our conventional ways of thinking and opens up our minds to what we are capable of in intense situations.

erchappel

Eric Chappel

FILM2003

Final Number 1

Lemon

This semester we watched a variety of films that to my understanding fall under the category of experimental film. These films are the ones I tended to struggle with the most. One particular film that I seemed to have the most...

My problem with the cruise: A film response to the cruise

“The anti-cruise is an attempt to imprison us. At every level of living it exists. Younger cruisers have asked me, "Why?" "Why is the anti-cruise so avaricious and constant in its attempt to stop the cruise? And I have no answer. There is no answer. I mean, it's gravitational, it's a relationship that's made up of reciprocals and pulling gravities. It simply exists. Where there is cruise there is an escort of anti-cruise. But even in a bastion of anti-cruise fodder... there is cruise. Somewhere in there is a sparkle of cruising energy. Deeply sublimated, within the bellowing belly of the beast,” Tim "Speed" Levitch. Yes I agree with Speed’s words that there’s always a ying to a yang or good vs. evil, what I don’t agree with is the way in which Bennett Miller has decided to depict the complicated character of Tim Levitch or “Speed” as he likes to be known. The Cruise directed by Bennett Miller is a character study of Speed, a tour guide for Manhattans Gray line double decker buses, who talks fast, is in love with the city of New York and has in his mind a seamlessly endless supply of knowledge and historical facts about the city as well as philosophical thoughts. My initial reaction to the film was that it was an interesting portrait of a men who is not one hundred percent understood. But as I have gone deeper into looking at the film I have come to the resolution that the film holds little merit and relation to landscape and representation in cinema because of the many issues found within the film’s narrative.

Jonas Meikas once wrote “I dislike any kind of mystery. The more I can tell about the people in my films the happier I am. In all my later films, I use titles to tell what you see. I like to tell in advance what it is, what’s coming, as much as I can, Of course, there is no need to tell everything; there are limits” (Meikas 195). I think that the film The Cruise is a perfect example of a film that Meikas talked about at the end of that quotation. It tells too much and with that over exposer in the narrative loses its self in the convoluted plot. The film starts out as an affectionate portrait of a men miss understood, then turns into a comedy with Speed telling the camera he only does his job for chicks, then back to a drama with a story of how speed went to jail because he was only trying to get a better look at the city he love. There’s nothing wrong with a film that has multiple genres and layers, as Dulac wrote film is actual better when it strives to do something creative with a certain narrative and has something going on underneath the surface. The problem with the Cruise is it’s not good at balancing these different motifs and genres, and the film suffers for it.

Lukinbeal came up with the four functions of landscape in cinema, Landscape as a place, space, spectacle, and metaphor. Now of course it’s possible to argue that the Cruise contains all four and it does but I don’t think that Bennett Miller used the four functions of cinema in his film very well. I think that there’s an augment that he used landscape as a space in the story that Speed gives about him going jail for breaking into the rooftops of New York to get a better view of the city. I mean after all Lukinbeal did state that “As a space, landscape provides an area in which the drama of the film can unfold,” (Lukinbeal). While it’s true that the rooftops did give a place for the drama of the film to unfold, they did not really act as a character like I’m sure Lukinbeal envisioned when he gave that quote. When dealing with the function of landscape as a spectacle the Cruise again falls flat, there’s no true emotion given off by the film, we the audience keep hearing from speed about how great of a city New York is but we are never treated to it with our own two eyes, because there’s nothing visual applying about the New York that Bennett Miller has presented to us. The function of landscape as a place refers to the idea that a landscape can be a place in the foreground that takes on the role of a supporting actor or character in a film. In the Cruise the place is New York but it never comes to life as a character that Bennett Miller and Speed want so desperately for it to be. It never really comes alive or lets its presence be known in the film and that is why the film fails to reach this function. The last function of landscape in cinema as described by Lukinbeal is landscape as a metaphor. This function states that meaning and ideologies are appropriated into landscape. In the Cruise the landscape of New York is given meaning, but it’s just in statements and that meaning is never truly backed up or justified. Like the scene in the film when Speed is looking up at the New York cathedrals and he says that the look of them holds a lot of weight but never explains why or how come.

It’s true that in life there is a sort of anti-cruise that is always following us, preventing us from living the life that we want to live, Speed was right about that when he said that and is one of the things that I truly liked about the Cruise, the realism and the knowledge of this character of Speed. What I didn’t enjoy was the complicated and nonlinear narrative of the film, and hearing about how great of a city New York is but never getting that feeling myself. The Cruise could’ve been an interesting character study about a man and his love for a city but it’s not instead I find a film that holds little merit and relation to landscape and representation in cinema because of the many issues found within the film’s narrative.

Winged Migration

Winged Migration (Jacques Perrin, 2001) is a documentary film about the migration of various bird species as they travel thousands of miles on their semiannual journey for survival. Perrin captures the extraordinary beauty of bird communities in flight among spectacular landscapes throughout the world without the use of special effects. The terrain changes as each species has its own migratory path, enhancing the splendor of the landscapes, which include the Himalayas, the Saharan dunes, the Great Wall of China and the Antarctica.

It is a lovely film and I think it would be an interesting addition to the Landscape in Cinema curriculum as it is abundant with outdoor natural landscapes. Even the bird communities provide a landscape as their flight behavior and structure creates a unique visual sculpture.

It’s possible that this film might be studied with the theorist Jonas Mekas: The Diary Film, because it’s an observational documentary consisting of a large compilation of film collected by five film crews over the course of a three year period. As with The Diary Film, Winged Migration falls into the form of a notebook, as Mekas refers to it, a notebook with the camera. In the case of Winged Migration, there were several teams keeping film notebooks, which documented birds in their spectacular migratory trips back and forth from the Northern to the Southern Hemisphere. These film diaries were then connected through jump-cuts resulting in a stunning, artist documentary which was nominated for the 2003 Academy Award for Best Documentary.

Mekas discusses an idea of the reflection process in determining what material to film and what to the keep. This is similar to a reflection of personal feelings as in a written diary (Mekas, 191). In a documentary, this is process is comparable to the filming and the editing process. This is evidenced by the film’s inclusion of both the birth of the birds and also their demise, at times by unnatural causes. It was startling to hear the sound of hunter’s guns interrupting the beauty of birds in flight. Another scene shows a group of birds contaminated in an environmental waste plant. I would argue that even the incorporation of the music involved personal reflection.

The film as a diary theory would suggest that the filmmaker was an avid bird lover. It reflects his enthusiasm over bird species, bird behaviors, birdcalls and their migrations. Winged Migration is a lovely homage to birds.

The movie uses subtitles to relay information, with only minimal narration, allowing the soundtrack and the sound of the birdcalls to create the aesthetic of the film. At times the honking sounds are humorous. The film’s intention is mainly visual. The subtitles provide information about the remarkable migratory routes and distances flown.

Both the birds and the landscapes create breathtaking cinema. The film captures images from North America to South America, Europe to Africa, Asia to India, and Southeast Asia to the Pacific. All seven continents are represented. It is an incredible achievement. In Chris Lukinbeal’s Cinematic Landscapes, he discusses four functions of landscape: place, space, spectacle, and metaphor. I would argue that the landscape in Winged Migration is used as a spectacle. Furthermore, the birds and their formations are also spectacular. Lukinbeal suggests that the “landscape can be simply something beautiful and visually pleasant” (Luknibeal, 11). This is absolutely true in Winged Migration. In fact, the film is less intent on providing information as it is on impressing the viewer visually.

According to Lukinbeal, “Landscape as spectacle encodes power relations within the gaze. Determination of what constitutes beauty, who is gazing and what we are gazing upon, are questions which help expose the inherent power relations embedded within cinematic landscapes” (Lukinbeal, 11). Taking this into account, I would say that Jacques Perrin is determining what is beautiful and what we, as the viewer, will see. He has made a very powerful film and forces us to find beauty in the birds and their habitats. The spectacular cinematic landscape of this film makes that easy. Perrin’s filmmaking career includes several films focusing on nature, including, Himalaya (1999) and Microcosmos (1996).

The film crews used gliders, remote-controlled cameras, a helicopter, a delta plane, an ultra light motorized aircraft, and balloons to get their shots. All provided close access to the birds without frightening them while also allowing camera penetration and movement. It’s clear that the birds were accustomed to the equipment and the filmmakers, as they are not bothered by their presence. These approaches provided shots, which helped the film stay interesting, through changing camera angles and altitudes. At times I wondered how the filmmaker was shooting the extremely difficult shots. A disclaimer states that no special effects were used in the filming of the birds.

Over fifty different species were shown in the movie. Among my favorite shots were the telephoto shots of the Bald Eagle perching in a tree in the Grand Canyon and the Sage Grouse in Idaho. The camera captures their beautiful mating ritual, which included magnificent displays of posturing and clamoring. While the birds were in flight the intimate camera access was able to capture the power within their wingspan. As the film points out, often the migration determines survival as those who are not able to complete the journey die. In this regard, the most impressive species is the Arctic tern, which travels which from the Artic Circle to the Antarctic Circle. The most entertaining was the red-crowned crane, which performed a ballet of sorts that resembled Swan Lake. Perrin was able to capture these uninterrupted moment of stunning bird behavior with the use of telescopic close-up shots.

In comparing this film to Paris, je t’aime (Alexander Payne, 2006) for use in the Landscapes in Cinema curriculum, I would suggest that Winged Migration also offers a discussion of the use of landscape in interpreting Lukinbeal’s theory. The spectacular approach is displaced clearly in this film and facilitates a perfect example of landscape as spectacle. It is also a pleasing experience and displays brilliant camera technique.

Bibliography

Mekas, Jonas. The Film Diary. The Avant-Garde Film: A Reader of Theory and Criticism (1978) pp190-198.

Lukinbeal, Chris. Cinematic Landscape. The Journal of Cultural Geography (Sept,2005)

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Film Topics: Landscape and Cinema at CU