The self-imposed restriction was silence? I'd say not, since the film begins with a voice asking the question to which Hanna answers at the end. In any case, the use of words here merely provide a catalyst for interpretation.
I think you are presuming that the meaning of the film is somehow revealed by the words, and we therefore need not look further. All the words do is clarify a matter of plot. I heard a guy once say about Citizen Kane, that if you just see the ending and discover that Rosebud is the name of the sled, then there's no reason to watch the rest of the movie. I hope you'll agree that he kind of missed the point.
The complaint you make strikes me as similar to that of the legions of LTV fans who dismissed the AF series when dialogue was added. They concluded that the use of words was laziness and cheating on my part.
― Peter Chung, Monday, 11 February 2008 20:11 (thirteen years ago) link
Oops, my fault. For some reason I interpreted "non-narrative film" as meaning no use of language. I don't think I've ever seen a film that didn't attempt some sort of narrative. What would that be, just like spinning fractals?
― J. F. Aldridge, Tuesday, 12 February 2008 15:40 (thirteen years ago) link
These are examples of more typical non-narrative animation:
I started a discussion on "in" at anipages.
― Peter Chung, Wednesday, 13 February 2008 18:28 (thirteen years ago) link
Heh, so a lot of it is like spinning fractals. It'd be interesting to try to detail an aesthetic for something like that.
― J. F. Aldridge, Saturday, 16 February 2008 17:20 (thirteen years ago) link
After watching "In" again and reading all of the anipages posts I've got to say that I think you give the film too much credit. And before you dismiss my opinion with another "if it doesn't speak to you" comment, I'd like to add that I actually did enjoy the film. I enjoyed it the first time I watched it, even with the frivolous qualm I brought up assuming it was being tagged a silent film, and yes I got all the symbolic interaction with the two objects in the beginning of the film. In fact, it was only until the film reached the tunnel sequence that I was tempted to fastforward the flick. Unfortunately, the tunnel sequence ended up dominating the entire film, leaving the context that was tactfully set-up in the beginning to dissolve in the growing tedium of hopping baby makers.
Maybe it's for the fact that I don't have such a reservoir of experience with short films, and so I haven't become jaded and annoyed enough by predictable uniformity to revel in the uniqueness of this piece. Or maybe it's for the fact that in the literary world it's more common place for the writer to make you work for the hidden narrative, and so I've learned to judge the content of the narrative rather than become infatuated by the fact that someone would dare challenge their audience. Whatever the reason, I consider the work to be good,and very interesting, but I can't share in the enthusiasm you give it. Oh's well, maybe it Is to each their own.
― J. F. Aldridge, Saturday, 16 February 2008 18:40 (thirteen years ago) link
I first saw it projected on a large screen at an arthouse cinema in Utrecht, not knowing anything about it, and not knowing how long it would last. (Most independent shorts at festivals run 5- 10 minutes, and most struggle to hold one's attention at even that length.) That viewing was unforgettable and inspiring.
Would it have had the impact on me if it was something I happened upon while surfing animators' websites and I viewed on my laptop screen sitting in my office? Or with expectations built up by someone who was proselytizing its artistic merit? Hard for me to say. I probably would not be writing lengthy theoretical pieces and posting them online.
But since there was some argument after the decision to award the film, and I was on that jury, I feel a duty to respond to those who questioned the reasoning of the judges.
― Peter Chung, Sunday, 17 February 2008 18:17 (thirteen years ago) link
This Aldridge individual seems to show some fine potential for constructive rhetorical engagement.
Or is that critical?
― Mark Mars, Monday, 18 February 2008 04:09 (thirteen years ago) link
I'm a bit of a dick, I'm afraid. A small dick though, so I'm at the same time ashamed of my presentation and always ready to compensate by being more of an ass. Bottoms up!
Jolly good to see you around again Mark.
― J. F. Aldridge, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 22:21 (thirteen years ago) link
You're making it difficult for me to be a jerk. Let alone a smartass! Damn!
Sonofabitch outdid me there
Shit, I'm gonna go to my room, now...(don't ask).
― Mark Mars, Thursday, 21 February 2008 03:24 (thirteen years ago) link
Not sure how "typical non-narrative" these are, but I've really been enjoying Code Hunters, Fallen Art, and Elephants Dream of late. What's everyone think about them? I love the style of Code Hunters. Fallen Art is devilishly fun to watch. And Elephant Dreams, on the darker side of things, has a definite Matrix feel to me, and ironically enough, reminds me of a bad dream you can’t wake up from.
― chopsticktrick, Thursday, 21 February 2008 15:21 (thirteen years ago) link