I had first watched "At Land (1944)", a silent black and white film. I really enjoyed how different scenes had connected together to make one fantastical environment. For instance, when the woman climbs up the roots of the log (tree?), she's not on the tree in the end, she's at the dining table. Deren's transitions connect the story together, but it also puzzles me. The film's surroundings are very adaptive (i.e. the people pay no attention to the woman crawling on the table and the man who randomly walks next to the woman and starts to talk to her). I didn't completely understand it, and I don't think anyone does the first time around. I feel like this is a piece that you have to sit down and actually fully watch (and watch again). And even then it's still confusing.
In her film, "Meshes of the Afternoon", it starts out with focusing on a flower. The focus shifts from the flower to the faceless woman holding the flower. The camera follows motions and important actions (such as the key falling or the woman's shadow). It has a lot of suspense as the figure's face is a reflective surface (a mirror perhaps?). Again, in this film, nothing is truly linear. It's not a story that flat out tells you what has occurred that one can follow easily. I was perplexed by the film as the woman saw herself in the past (sort of like in "At Land" where she runs back to the beginning with the chess piece in hand and sees her former selves running through the motions she had been through). There was a cool effect from the film that caught my attention though, and that would be when she throws the knife at the man and the whole screen "breaks". It's shattered like a mirror on the screen. Yet, despite the cool transitions and the experimental aspects of the film, I wish I had a better grasp at what it was about. Deren had the audience witness the motions, but what does it all mean?
No comments:
Post a Comment