I bet Michael Snow would have something interesting to say about demanding a certain amount of time from the viewer with the duration of the film, given his other work as a sculptor and painter, etc. He was at that screening, but for some reason or another I don't have strong memories of the Q&A after the 3-hour movie!Seance wrote:
I've watched a few different "duration" films projected on film and it can be (depending on the film) incredible.
And of course the work of John Cage was a huge influence for a lot of avant-garde filmmakers. So duration plus
form is an appealing equation for lots of filmmakers just as it is for certain musicians.
You can step up to a painting or sculpture and spend as much or as little time with it as you desire. I guess
it says something about musicians and filmmakers/videomakers that they want to sculpt time and control even
that dimension of a viewer's experience. They want people to walk into a dark room and quiet their thoughts and
close their mouths and open their minds and soak it all in over a specified duration. Some people rebel against
such an imposition.
(I see Snow at gigs from time to time, but he's one of the few music people I feel awkward about chatting with.)
I guess, besides telling you that you can tune out if you want to, there's not much that a film-maker can do but impose on your time, because the duration of the shot is just inherent in the medium. Conversely, I wonder if any painters or sculptors have ever insisted that viewers look at their works for a certain minimum of time just to soak it all in...
