DV-FILME 2004 | ARTIKEL 2004 | TEXTE ZUM THEMA | ARCHIV 2003 | 2002 | 2001
|
Suicide sind siebzig Minuten voller verrückter Grübeleien einer fiktiven Filmemacherin über das Reisen und die Familie, über Geschichte, Tod und Sex, entstanden bei der Durchquerung einer Welt der Einkaufszentren, Flughäfen und Bahnhöfe, auf der verzweifelt hoffnungsvollen Suche nach einem Grund zum Weiterleben. Als persönlicher Tagebuch-Film und mit der Regisseurin in der Rolle der imaginären Filmemacherin gedreht, kommt Suicide nervös, düster und komisch daher. [aus dem Forumprogramm] QUESTIONNAIRE How would you describe the aesthetics of your film? suicide is a 70 minute feature-length narrative disguised as a personal video journal. Certain aesthetic choices were therefore made to follow that particular genre. This would include using a small-format small pro-sumer camera befitting a crew of one, handheld camerawork (unless a shelf, lap or table was handy), no additional lighting and a seemingly non-professional actor. It was shot almost entirely in public spaces, spaces of transit, commerce or tourism. I did the shooting, editing and writing at the same time, and the film has a feeling of being constantly in a state of being built, the story changing depending on what the fictional filmmaker saw that day. Working this way afforded me the ability to at times be lead by the images filmed that day, by the logic of the story, or by the increasingly vocal demands of my main character, Amanda. Amanda suffers from an inability to direct her desire into the normative paths of home, job, family, relationships that would allow her to connect and live socially. These paths are blocked, so that her desire must take other, more circuitous, anarchic and fantastic directions, exploding almost indiscriminately onto everyone and everything around her. This is of course a sad state of affairs for Amanda, but the film visually and aurally thrives based on this dilemma, as this desire bounces everywhere else, onto everything she hears (we hear) and she sees (we see). This is apparent in the super-colorful overstuffed images of Osaka, moist eyes staring down suggestively from gargantuan billboards, small hairs on the edge of a man's ear, waving gently in the wind. The editing jerks from frame to frame hacksaw style, to images left to languish, mirroring the slow time of the aimless tourist waiting for her next connection. As is true for all the other elements of suicide, 36 ambient, voiceover, music and effects tracks were edited simultaneously with the picture (again the glories of Final Cut) the music a driving force from the very beginning, not scored in later, and one feels that the sound is an active (at times even overly active) character in the film. The audio functions as a gleefully malevolent machine, starting up, abruptly breaking down; shifting within seconds from depression to elation. Why did you choose to shoot on dv? The mini-dv format was chosen as it is both the format of choice for artists and filmmakers without budgets and tourists. Like Amanda (and incidentally, like me). As stated above, it is THE format of personal journal films. Why shoot in 35mm in a way that 'imitates' dv? Why not go for the real thing? I started suicide before it had received any funding. This wasn't part of the decision making process, but I might possibly still be pitching the story if I had decided to shoot in 35mm. What was special about shooting in dv (e.g. compared to 35mm, was it your first time with dv or are you used to it)? This was my first time using digital video, but I've been working in other small and medium formats of video since 1980 (3/4", betacam, hi-8), as well as small formats of film (S-8, 16mm). There's not a helluva lot of difference between hi-8 for example, except a somewhat improved resolution, a more electronic look, and much less dropout. That said, what was particularly great about using mini-dv, besides the vastly improved quality of digital sound, was the small foldout screen. I used this extensively in suicide, as it disconnects one's eye from the camera. The camera no longer has to be a physical extension of one's own eye. It also allows for a special kind of interaction, used in suicide most often with children, where they can watch themselves being shot. It is a very intimate thing, watching someone watch themselves. This kind of interaction gives something back to them as it's happening. This foldout screen also, as I play Amanda, the fictional filmmaker of the work, allowed me the ability to shoot myself shooting myself. Another change that greatly influenced sucide, was not so much the specific format of video, but that video cameras are now ubiquitous in many societies. At any moment I was one of many shooting in these spaces, the fact of having a video camera is now nothing special, a tourist's tool. I used a Canon Gl1, because it has a 20x optical zoom lens, very convenient for getting the extra close shots that my voyeuristic fictional filmmaker favored. I also like it's contrast ratio (not too contrasty) and especially it's size. It doesn't look scary or professional, but it is very stable. A friend of mine referred to it as my little dog, which would always be perched and filmming from the seat next to me in a restaurant, or the small foldout table on an airplane. What was your shoot-edit ratio? About 40:1. The other magic of video. A 60 minute mini-dv tape (color and synch sound included) costs around $6.50. Would you have preferred to shoot in another format? If so which? No. This piece was so tied to tourism and a very personal form of production. Mini-dv was the only format that made sense for this project. Does using dv mean that you are considering other means of distribution opposing the established? If so which? I've been working in video since 1980, and so I've always been outside of the established distribution process of film. This has meant non-profit distribution in the video art world (my long-time distributor Electronic Arts Intermix, for example), a link to the art world (which has until recently also viewed video with suspicion) as well as a lot of 'creative' (read blood sweat and tears) self-distribution to festivals, independent and experimental film theaters, galleries and museums. My approach was and continues to be scrambling. Doors closing, windows opening, and me producing what I want with the hope that someone will watch it. I've been amused by the way that dv (which stands of course for digital video) is often referred to as somehow divorced from it's poorer, less cool relative 'video' and most often either referred to as mysterious initials (dv) or with the one magical word 'digital.' Video has been offering a cheap, accessible means of production for a long time. I'm pleased that it's now being accepted by the film world, and that many festivals are now accepting work shot on dv. But I do find it strange when filmmakers embrace it as if it is a completely different medium, a new discovery, often these are the same filmmakers who were disparaging towards video only a few years ago. It is really, more or less, the same stuff. Magnetic particles attached to some plastic. What now puzzles me, is many festivals' reluctance to project video. If it is no longer connected to an absolute aesthetic choice (a festival and a film being tied to a particular medium), why should a maker have to fundraise $20-30,000 extra dollars for a print to 35mm? I think this is really a transitional moment, it's possible in a few years projections of all films will be electronically based. For the moment this decision doesn't seem connected to formal considerations, and it certainly privileges makers from certain richer countries. One good word about dv (or two): democratic (well, more democratic) One bad word about dv (or two): compression. [zurück zur DV-FILM ÜBERSICHT] [nach oben] |
