Pine Flat

Pine Flat was extremely different from any film I had viewed up to this point in my life. Due to my past viewing experiences, I typically go into films expecting: action, dialogue, interaction of humans, plot, and editing ‘personality’ (cuts, different points of view, panning), amongst other things. For most of this 2+ hour film I did not get what I anticipated.

It was a different way of watching/seeing than I am used to. I felt like I kept noticing little things and looking for similarities and differences because the action wasn’t brought/ presented to me. Since the film seemed so tedious, every little detail became a big event.

An example of this is the clip with the boy playing the harmonica. Since the nature within which he is placed is calm/ tranquil/ repetitive we don’t recognize its movement as action (as much at least); we are not surprised when the river keeps running or the grass keeps swaying in the wind. Human movements are also expected by us, yet not as systematically; we notice when the motions occur. The boy adjusts the way he is sitting. These are not simply motions like: up, down, up, down. He puts one leg up, stands, sits, itches his head, etc. Each motion is unique and new and at random intervals of time (not systematic) so each is noticed.

Throughout the film I closed eyes every once and a while to listen to what was occurring (trying to use my different senses to see if I could pick up anything else that was going on). Both with my eyes open and with them closed, there was no real sense of anticipation. This is, in part, because nothing was really happening (in an action sense); the only real sense of anticipation or anxiety I felt was waiting for/ hoping that something would occur.

In fact, there was only one time throughout the 2+ hours where I actually felt involved. This was when the boy in the forest pointed the gun at the camera. This scene provoked emotion within me and therefore made me pay attention to it. The rest of the film appeared to be more interested in our own thoughts of what is occurring in each scene. I think this is true because the author doesn’t really sway our opinions but changing the point of view or framing of the shots.

The frame for each clip was a set distance from the people and it was placed at a particular angle. The director did not zoom, scan, create different angles, or create cuts (within each 10 minute clip at least). There was not only very little action within the clips (done by nature or the individuals), there was also no ‘action’ or motion of the camera. All of these things, in my view, added to tediousness of the film.

The still, framed, character of the clips made them more like photographs than what we think of, at least today, as film. Closer yet, the clips are like a photo shoot, in which the artist studies a subject, focuses in on it, and waits to capture the pregnant moment or best frame. However, we (the audience) experience the whole “action” or duration of the subject (or the entire photo shoot) rather than just getting the pregnant moment that is captured and released by the photographer.

Part one was about individual kids. Each of these six clips has similarities. Each child was placed in the center of the screen while they were filmed. They were the focus of the shot and of the audience’s attention (for the most part). The centering of the child stresses their importance to the piece of work. They are thus seen as the central part of the work. Each child is also within a nature scene. Within this tranquil nature, however, there are unnatural elements (things that are not from nature, but rather man-made with technology and by mechanical means). These creations of mankind catch the attention of the audience because of their direct contrast with the peaceful sounds and sights of nature. Examples of these inventions that are seen within the film are: harmonica, book, gun, car, and airplane.

The six clips from part 2, about groups of kids, also have similarities amongst them. For one, they are more “typical” of what people expect from a film. There was: dialogue, interaction with humans, and some action (ex. shooting of each other with guns). All in all, the scenes from part 2 had more motion and far more variety in the kinds of motion. The ‘characters’ within these clips had interaction with humans rather than just nature. The clips appeared less tedious due to these additions.

There are many different forms of time within this piece. Some of them are: the time it took to film (and if the had to re-film), the time it too to edit, and the time it took for it to play (while we watched). These types of time are all mechanical and clock regulated, like in the Chaplin films. Each shot has duration and they are all the same. Ten minutes, the same amount of repetitive, aggravating time. On the other hand, the time is not mechanical. In this way, we don’t realize how much time has elapsed while watching it. There are no real indicators or references to time throughout besides the fact that we logically realize that time is passing.

There are also different spaces in which these times took place. There was the space/ location where it was filmed, the space where it was edited, and the space where it was screened, amongst others.

All in all I found this film tedious and would not like to see it again. On the other hand, (to give it some credit) it was a creative idea and it really made the viewer think while watching.

Laura Wood