Premonition

Premonition, which came out this year, combines the basic elements of a sci-fi film with those of a melodrama and action film. Sandra Bullock's character Linda is living out the seemingly perfect life with an attractive husband, two beautiful daughters and a big American home, when suddenly her life is turned upside down. She comes to learn that her husband has died in a fluke car accident. After Linda suffers from shock and disbelief, the following morning she is surprised to find her husband laying next to her in bed.
This non-linear film jumbles the days of the week, and inserts Linda's premonitions into her reality to make for a very confusing, yet somewhat suspenseful film. While the film overtly deals with time, the underlying theme is the question of predetermination or destiny. Without trying, Linda acts out the events that lead to the climax that she has already witnessed in her premonition. It becomes obvious that, even though she is aware of the situation, she cannot control what is destined to be.
I'm not sure that i can really decide if this movie fits into the 'good' or 'bad' category. I have heard so many negative reviews about the film (since it has been out in theaters for quite some time) that i was expecting it to be absolutely terrible. i have seen some terrible films, and i don't think this should be in the same category. I think i am biased because i like Sandra Bullock, and we are also talking so much about time that i found it interesting. I appreciated the film's originality and creativity with the manipulation of time, however, i would recommend to wait and rent it on DVD because $9.50 is expensive for a film that is just okay.
-chloe kloezeman

Premonition, 2007

Premonition is basically about a woman who knows her husband will die on a certain day before it happens. This movie is much like the recent movie Deja Vu or even Donnie Darko, where the character sees what's going to happen and then does it without realizing it. For example, Sandra Bullock puts pills down a drain just as she saw it in her vision, but realizes that she's just setting up fate. It's not until she puts the newspaper in the garbage that she realizes what she's doing. What's different about this movie is that there is no sequence to how the week is played out. In Donnie Darko, the audience sees a linear sequence of events, where it's Mon, then Tues, then Thurs, etc. In Premonition, it starts with Thursday, then jumps to Monday, then Saturday, Tuesday, Friday, Sunday, and finally Wednesday. There are a few errors in the film's sequences, such as the stickers on the glass door and when they show the cuts on the girl's face. The girl gets the cuts on Tuesday but when they show Thursday early on in the film, she doesn't have them, but has them later on Saturday.
A good idea that the film brought up was whether or not you can change events; you may try to change it but how do you know whether or not you trying to change it is actually what's needed to make the original event happen in the first place?

pine flat

Pine flat by Sharon Lockhart was composed of roughly ten minute long fixed frame scenes. These scenes were split into several two parts with an intermission in between. The first series of scenes was composed of children by themselves while the second focused on group interaction. At first each scene seemed painfully long but as the viewer becomes accustomed to the drawn out, monotonous style they start to view the little things in the scene. For example, in a scene in the first half of the film, there is ten minutes of a girl sitting and reading. The viewer quickly looses interest in the girl reading because there is not much to interact with. However after several minutes of boredom the viewer begins to notice the sounds of birds, the waving of grass, the wind in the trees and other minor details. The viewers consciousness is drawn away from what its typically the center of the frame, or what would typically be considered the focal point of the action. This style forces the audience to notice the details that they would otherwise not notice. This is also illustrated in the scene that has a child sleeping in the center of the screen for its entirety. Because this scene is several scenes into the film the viewer already knows not to focus on the child for too long. As the viewer, I began to focus on the grass moving, the twitches of the child and its affects on his environment. The sounds of animals, wind and so on. The fixed frame style of pine flats brings out the details of a shot while conflicting with the typical perception of a film because there is no dominant action, theme or crisis.
The later portion of the film is more like a typical film because it has more action and conflict. Due to the interaction between people this portion of the film has more to entertain the viewers. In several scenes there are children running around, playing games and basically acting like kids. The viewer sees conflict with kids playing with airsoft guns, and sees extensive movement on the hike up through the screen or around the screen. However, the details are still a huge part of every scene. There are still prolonged moments with little to no action. The viewer has already become accustomed to these pauses and will focus on the minor details in the absence of more significant action. While the style of the film is not increadibly entertaining it forces the viewer to focus on things they otherwise would not have noticed.

Next - Anthony Castanos

The movie Next is about Chris Johnson's ability to see the future, how the government is trying to use his power to stop terrorists, and his attempts to save his girlfriend, played by Jessica Biel, from a preconceived death. The idea of the film calls into question the concept of fate and whether or not what Johnson sees could actually be considered "the future." Technically he still has to the ability to change his decisions and affect the now rather than following a preconception that would lead to his death or some sort of trouble. It seems instead, he sees what could potentially happen rather than a definite fate. The movie suggests that there is a difference between seeing the future and seeing your fate because while you can change your present situation to adjust the future, seeing fate would have to be impossible if it's meant to be a fixed, inevitable future that can never go unchanged and seeing it ahead of time would already change what you were meant to do. This film contrasts from Minority Report in that Tom Cruise sought to follow his preconceived future to find out if it was true while Johnson makes his own future by adjusting his decisions in the now to form a preapproved future. The film takes the liberty of making Johnson's powers into physical images such as when he divides into several figures to find a prefered future.

Next

A line from the film that really stood out to me was "Every time you look at the future it changes, because you looked at it. And that changes everything else." This seems to support the idea that time is changing, that everything is constantly changing. And it invokes another idea that each change has its succeeding change and that there is some kind of chain reaction mechanism. But what interests me is the fact that simply looking at it changes the future. Why does simply looking at it change it? What if you were to look at it but do nothing to alter the change? This seems to imply that the simple act of looking, which can arguably equate to the simple fact of knowing the future or the succeeding change is enough to change the future. So does knowledge, even if left alone and not used, have the power to change a future? Or might it mean that once we have knowledge, it is impossible to separate it from our actions which effect change? This reminds me of Bergson when he says that having an end state in mind drives the action to arrive at that end state. But in the case of this film, the major storyline is that he has two end states in mind: the one he sees occurring in the future, and the one he desires to occur in the future. And knowledge of both these end states drives his actions.

Film Screening: Next

The film Next is about a man, Nicholas Cage, who can see two minutes into the immediate future. Because of his talent, he is tracked down by the government to locate an atomic bomb about to be deployed by terrorists. An interesting scene in this film is when him and the police are in a hostile situation and he proceeds to divided his vision up into a multitude of selfs and explore the area in which there are possible bad guys or sensor bombs. What it shows us on the screen is him standing in one position and images of himself departing from his body in all different directions. What he intends to do by pulling this stunt is test all the possible options of what would happen next if they went in this or that direction. Therefore, if one of his images sets of a sensor bomb and dies, he know not to choose that option and instead picks another route. In this scene theya re in an engine room with many levels and platforms and the camera pans all around the room showing us replicas of Nicholas Cage testing all the different next options. He finally clears the entire area and they proceed to kick ass. It is stated in the film that when one sees the possible options of what comes next, that changes the future. I think by saying this , he means that nothing can be predetermined even if he can see in the future because doing that changes what comes Next.

JoeyP

Film Screening - BB Optics

On April 10, I attended the PFA’s screening of BB Optics. This screening involved a presentation by Bill Brand of a number of works he has been responsible for preserving through his company, BB Optics. The six short features shown were the Nixon White House Super-8 Films, New Left Note, The Fallen World, Fire in My Belly, Home Avenue, Black and White Film, and Daffodils.

The Nixon White House Super-8 Films were created by members of Nixon’s cabinet who were given video cameras to record whatever they chose to. The majority of the film focused in on Nixon attending political events. The film lacked sound, making it extremely boring to watch. I didn’t understand the point of filming Nixon giving a speech when you aren’t able to hear what he is saying.

The next clip shown was New Left Note. This clip consisted of mostly scenes of political protest. The editing was extremely jumpy and disjointed. As Mr. Brand discussed, the clip left out the leaders, choosing instead to focus in on the common people involved in the protests.

The Fallen World was the artist, Margie Keller’s intimate portrayal of her husband. The first shot focused in on a huge stone sculpture. A classical music soundtrack accompanied the clip. The video followed a middle-aged man as he walked around to different sites, including a graveyard.

A Fire in My Belly focused in on scenes from Mexico. The film started off by cutting between newspaper articles and scenes on the street of Mexico. Next, the film showed two wrestlers fighting along with scenes of a cock fight and a bull fight. Finally, the film ended with scenes from a circus, showing a person on a trapeze and a monkey doing tricks.

The next three films shown by Mr. Brand were described as portraying intimate situations. The first film, Home Avenue, involved a women retelling the story of how she was raped in college. She discussed each event at the same locations that each event took place. In the next film, Black and White, we watched in black and white as a woman undressed and then slowly covered parts of her body with black paint, making them disappear to the audience. The final film was Daffodils, which was intimate showing of Mr. Brand by his wife.

Overall, I was disappointed with the BB Optics showing at the PFA. I found most of the clips boring. This probably stemmed from the fact that I had no connection to the film archival process like many people in the audience did.

Philip Schmidt

Announcement about Film and Event Reviews

The last day of class, May 2, is the deadline for posting film and event reviews to the blog for course credit. If you have attended something and not yet posted about it, be sure to do so over the next week!

There is a film 5/2 at PFA. Plus this weekend the San Francisco Film Festival begins, so you could try to see something in it if you still need to attend a film: www.sffif.org. Check it out even if not for class; there are some great things in the program...

Jim Campbell, Shadow

Jim Campbell’s artwork, Shadow, is an intriguing piece because the ability to see its details is impossible. The piece is seen from afar as a Buddha in a square glass box. Upon approaching it, smoke fills the glass box, making it impossible to see the intricacy of the piece, leaving only a shadow of the Buddha inside. Campbell describes his work as frustrating. It is this frustration that controls the interest of its viewers. Because the viewers would soon lose interest if they could outsmart the piece, Campbell dedicated most of his efforts to ensure there were no holes in the interface, which would hinder the viewer’s attempt to sneak up to the object. I found it comical that the Buddha is sitting atop a scientific journal article from 1993. This is ironic because it is impossible to get close enough to the piece to read it. As I stood in front of the piece I found myself running up to it, as if I could move faster than the smoke within the box. Campbell’s piece was extremely interesting because we are able to interact with it, but is also frustrating as he described.

Campbell also described his work as a, “one liner.” As I sat there, I became somewhat disappointed as Campbell seemed uninspired by his own work. Many individuals were enthusiastic, asking questions and finding new ways to interpret the meaning of the piece. I felt like everyone was looking too far into the piece, whereas Campbell saw it as just a Buddha in a box. Campbell’s lack of enthusiasm caused me to question the true meaning of art. Are we looking to far into it, trying to find meaning that does not exist? Or can it be interpreted in any way, differing with every viewer?

The video Campbell showed was attention grabbing, because you really had to look at what you were watching in order to understand what is truly there. The video started out as a blurry mixture of colors, but as I watched, it slowly began to develop into movement. Eventually I was able to see it for what it truly was, a boxing match. Campbell said that this type of art is very interesting because every individual who experiences it is different. Some take 10 minutes to see it for what it is, whereas for others it takes 10 seconds. These videos provided art in which the viewer can interact, making it more appealing as well as entertaining.

Response to Berkeley Dance Project 2007

The piece The Reception, featured in the Berkeley Dance Project 2007 at UC Berkeley, is an examination of “cyber culture” and “corporeal presence” through a crossing of choreographed dance and what they described as tele-immersion technology. The thirty-minute Reception included actual dancers who interacted with people that were filmed and then either televised on a monitor, or projected onto a screen. The narrator, who also physically participated in the show, asked the audience to examine their own notions of presence, and whether the lack of physical presence can be replaced, and equally so, through cyber-incarnations. These questions echo the notions of Mark Hansen in his article Seeing with the Body.

In the first segment, a female dancer dances with a cybernetic partner projected on a large screen in front of her. A web camera captures the image of the dancing girl, and, remotely, sends the image to a program in another building on campus, which reinterprets the image, transports it back, and projects a pixilated dancer on the large screen. The result is a sort of digital shadow. As the process of capturing the image, transporting it, and transposing it takes a few seconds, there is a slight delay between the dancer and her digital shadow. The actual dancer reacts to this delay, and tends to repeat herself, in order to present the illusion of dancing with an actual partner, or perhaps just her reflection. From this, arises the dichotomy of whether the digitization is supposed to simply be a sort of reflection (ballerina practicing in a mirror), or the replacement of a human, creating a new dance partner that will never break synchronicity.

The second segment questioned the notion of presence, and the lack thereof, in connection with digital replacement. The narrator muses on a distant lover, and his desire to see her and be with her. He then interacts with a “talking-head” (the head and shoulders) version of his lover playing on a monitor from a pre-recorded video. They converse back and forth with one another, presenting a believable interaction. Two questions arise from this. Firstly, from a personal standpoint, if our ideas on “what is real” are merely reinterpretations of our perceptions of reality, then does a digital reincarnation of someone suffice for their absence if we perceive the digitization to be real? And secondly, from an audience standpoint, and through a similar reasoning, is there a difference between watching two real people interact, and a real person and a digitally portrayed person interact if we can ignore the presence of digitization?

The questions raised in The Reception are tackled by Mark Hansen in his article Seeing with the Body. Hansen claims that digital reinterpretation, such as that featured in the dance piece, creates a “plane severed from a human observer”. (58) He believes that this in no way mimics or suffices for human presence. The existence of digital medium blocks reality-based human perception, as we are cut off from the “real” emotions of physical contact.

Eddie Berman

Doug Aitken

Doug Aitken, prominent LA artist, spoke of creating non-linear narratives that discuss the relation of different images in space. The theme in all of his works seem to be “Let’s make it, break it, and make it new again”. Aitken was frusterated with the rigidity of film and wanted to work with different perceptions. With works such as Diamond Sea, set in the diamond mines of Africa, he claimed to first break the linearity of film. He creates a psychological landscape out of physical one by allowing images to expand and become, what he calls, “kaleidoscopic”. Other works, such as Eraser and Monsoon focus on negative space. Other works he discussed included Rise which showed a cityscape from a “God’s eye view”. Next he discussed Into the Sun, which he claimed “expanded the notion of filmmaking through its connection to mythology.” The photograph he showed of the exhibit in London had projections of film on 3 walls and red earth covering the floor. Aitken also talked about Restless Minds, a film showing the beat patterns and linguistics of auctioneers.
Aitken discussed many interesting things in him lecture, however I was most taken with his ideas on the closed door policy of museums. I loved how he projected his work on the outside walls of a museum, in order to escape the constraints of tickets, hours, etc., so that even a person walking by or traveling on a bus could experience his work. I am also intrigued by the dioramas that he creates. For example, Plateau 1 is a large model created almost entirely out of fed-ex boxes. The sheer intricacies and the 6 months that it took to makes is completely fascinating.
I enjoyed the discussion and the work presented was very interesting and stimulating, however Aitken seems to be a slightly pompous, stereotypical artist—mellow, but very full of himself.

Breakdown of Due Dates

4/22 Dance Performance at 2pm

4/23, Due in class: 2-3 page Final Paper Outline
Include the name of what you are working on in the title of the outline. Start with a short paragraph articulating your main argument. (A thesis paragraph.) List a CLAIM for each body paragraph; this is a topic sentence. Indicate the EVIDENCE or sources you will work with to support that claim (text, scene). Paraphrase your ANALYSIS of pertinent details of this evidence. Briefly suggest how your INTERPRETATION will link this analysis to your claim. (see handout) Cite the sources you are using at the end of the outline.

4/23 6pm Screening of your clips
You can show a SHORT clip from the film you are writing on: must be under 5 minutes!! If you are not writing on a film you can use my laptop (or yours) to access a website or show an image of a game or artwork.

4/25 and 4/30 In-Class Presentations
You will have five minutes to present your final project to the class. You will need to explain your argument in a general way; it is a task very similar to that of writing the introduction to your paper. We will be especially interested to hear how you will use Dlz/Vrlio/Sbchk/Hnsen; how the example you are working on relates to things from the class that we have all read or seen; and how its presentation of space and especially time fit in with the larger themes of the course. You will be able to use my laptop or yours to show images or slides but you are not required to do so. (If you want to use my laptop you will need to e-mail me a PowerPoint file titled with your name by 9am the morning of your presentation.) We’ll talk more about the presentations in class on 4/23.

4/30 6-8pm (screening time) ROUGH DRAFT due in two copies, Peer Edit
You will be partnered with another student to do a live peer-edit. You will read and discuss each other’s rough drafts, offering critique and advice. You’ll take home the copy that your partner read and wrote on, and we will keep the other copy. You can choose to show each other edits beyond this session if you find it helpful.

5/7 FINAL PAPER Due by 6pm in hard copy and by e-mail
One hard copy is due to Norman’s box in the Rhetoric office. The other copy is due by e-mail, as a Word.doc attachment, to Brooke at bbelisle@berkeley.edu. Please put “Final Paper” in the subject line of this e-mail so it will land in the right place. You will not get your final papers back, since we find that so many students never come pick them up. We will e-mail, to whatever e-mail address you have listed on BearFacts, your grade on the final paper and your grade for the cours, and probably a sentence of commentary. We will e-mail you more extensive feedback about your final paper only if you ask us to do so; please indicate this on the front of the hard copy you turn in AND in the body of the e-mail you send that has your final paper attached.

Office hours 2/23 - 5/2 (brooke)

4/23 MONDAY in Rhetoric Library
11.15 joanna
11.30 cathy
11.45 chris
12 laura
12.15 olivia
12.30 johnny

4/25 WEDNESDAY in Rhetoric Library
11.15 leesha
11.30 alina
11.45
--
12.15 robin
12.30
12:45

4/30 MONDAY
11.15
11.30
11.15
11.30
--
12
12.15
12.30
12.45

5/2 WEDNESDAY at Cafe Milano on Bancroft between Telegraph and College
11.15
11.30
11.45
---
12.30
12.45
1
1.15
1.30
1.45
2
(3pm film at PFA)

Final Paper Rashomon

I'm planning on doing my final paper on the 1950 film Rashomon, directed by Akira Kurosawa and written by Shinobu Hashimoto along with Kurosawa. The film takes place in 12-century Japan and follows three different accounts of the murder of a Samurai, as told to a trial judge. Each account, - the first from the killer, the next from the slain samurai, and the last from a third party - are each completely different from each other. Yet, as Kurosawa presents each story with equal credence, he challenges the viewer to decipher which is true, if any of them are. I'm planning to relate this to Sobchack's idea concerning memory.

Mark Hansen - Seeing With the Body: The Digital Image in Postphotography

1. In Mark Hansen’s article, Seeing With the Body: The Digital Image in Postphotography, he starts by discussing a particular scene in Ridley Scott’s Bladerunner. In this particular scene, Rick Deckard places a photograph into a machine and using this machine, is able to explore the space three-dimensionally within this two-dimensional picture. Hansen believes that the digitization of photographs creates a crisis. In one way, digital manipulation of photographs poses a “threat…to traditional indexical notions of photographic realism” (54). This isn’t the first time that this problem is brought up in the movie. At a different point in the film, a replicant named Rachael confronts Rick Deckard after Deckard accuses her of being a replicant. She shows him a picture of herself with her mother. Yet, the audience realizes that the photograph is a fake. In this world of advanced technology, a photograph, something that usually can be counted on to be authentic, can no longer be trusted to be authentic.

2. Another crisis created by the digitization of photographs that Hansen discusses is the “radically new understanding of the photographic image as a three-dimensional “virtual” space” (54). As Deckard uses the machine to move around within the two-dimensional picture, he transforms this two-dimensional space into a three-dimensional space. This machine transforms a photograph from “a physical inscription of light on sensitive paper” into a “data set that can be rendered in various ways and thus viewed from various perspectives” (54). In a sense, this machine that is able to move around inside of a two-dimensional photograph has gained a human-like quality. With commands from a user, the machine is able to move around the photograph, focusing in on particular areas of interest. This is the same as if a human being was suddenly transported to the scene of the original photograph, able to move around and explore as he pleased. This machine is taking the place of human vision, allowing a person to explore the area in a picture without having to actually be there.

3. This visual technology is “relocating vision to a plane severed from a human observer” (58). Suddenly, a person does not need to be present to observe a scene, all he needs is a photograph of the place and the right technology. This technology is taking the place of the human eye. However, this shift from the human eye to technology changes what an image represents. With the use of technology, images suddenly represent “millions of bits of electronic mathematical data” (58).

Philip Schmidt

Kenneth Anger Films

Tonight’s films from Kenneth Anger were confusing in the sense that they had no plot, and Scorpio Rising was especially difficult to view because of the rapid assembling of different scenes flashing before you. It reminded me of a slideshow rather than my traditional idea of a film.

Fireworks had somewhat of a plot and possibly represented a dream. A sailor was holding a man while lightning flashed, then the scene cut to the man sleeping on his bed. I assume that when he “woke up” he was dreaming, and his dream was about a group of sailors beating him up. Although the movie ends with a scene of him sleeping, confirming my idea that it was a dream, there are parts that lead you to believe it wasn’t. For example, the fireplace is now on fire, presumably from the flaming Christmas tree in the dream, and the hand on his desk is now fixed, when it was broken in the “dream”. On another note, something in the film reminded me of the film we saw in class where the dancer danced into different rooms. At one point in Fireworks, the man was talking to a sailor at what looked like a bar, then in his home next to the fireplace. Unlike the film we saw in class, this was much more abrupt and it was difficult to tell if it was meant to be connected to the previous scene.

Rabbit’s Moon wasn’t much easier to understand, but an interesting idea the lecturer brought up was the debate he had when restoring the film: flip the image or don’t flip the image? Apparently the film was accidentally flipped when Anger transferred it, which caused Lipman to wonder whether or not to flip it back. There were two sides to it: 1) the big dipper would appear correctly if it was flipped or 2) not flipping it may keep what was intended. He decided making two versions, one flipped and one not, which I think was a fair decision.

Hansen - Seeing the Body: The Digital Image in Postphotography

1. In Mark Hansen’s article, he starts off with the scene from Bladerunner in which Deckard manipulates a photograph in order to discover evidence leading to the whereabouts of the replicants. In his investigation, he operates a computer and reveals the invisible by walking through the image as if it is a 3d world rather than a flat image. However, this manipulation of photographs and the digital technology comes into question as he brings up William Mitchell. Mitchell grows wary of the present day digital manipulation of images and questions “the status and interpretation of the visual signifier” (57). Hansen proposes Mitchell’s guidelines limits the scope of digital photography and imaging. Instead of digitizing a hardcopy image, one can construct a 3d environment within the computer and take a picture within this environment. Game developers often such virtual worlds and take screenshots of these virtual environments. This may supposedly break Mitchell’s limits, however images within computers still relay the images back to in a 2d format. While Mitchell may worry about the implications of digital, digital photography acts as a quicker, perhaps more efficient tool in traditional photography, bypassing many steps of development.

2. Hansen later raises the question of the human perception versus the machine vision. Several theorists before the digital age criticized the human mind in operating in a camera-like fashion, taking snapshots of reality and missing out on true motion. As the technology evolved to present day digital media, Hansen brings up Florian Rotzer’s belief of “functional isomorphism.” “A person does not see the world out there,” rather “see[ing] the model created by the brain and projected outwards” (65). Hansen suggests that if the computer vision “abandons perspective entirely in favor of a completely realized modelization,” then it is possible to modify what our perspective. This poses the problem that human construction becomes as malleable and controlled like a photographic image. However, Hansen rebuts that the computer vision can only be an instrument or aid of human perspective.

3. The digital technology acts as an extension of our bodies or rather “embodied prosthesis.” Hansen then quotes architect Lars Spuybroek, suggesting that all thoughts and movements belong to the mind and within our body. These thoughts come to fruition when we will our body to move and operate in the “haptic” world. Hansen then interprets the computer to be an extension of our bodies, able to extend as a prosthetic into the virtual world. Suddenly our “body, in short has become crucial mediator between information and form: the supplemental sensorimotor intervention it operates coincidences with the process through which the image is created” (78). Our body acts as an intermediate between the mind and the virtual world full of data.

-Benjamin Louie

PFA: "The Passenger" by Michelangelo Antonioni

Frustrated about his life and his failure to effectively inquire/report about rebels in Africa, David Locke takes the identity of a dead man (Mr. Robinson) in the hotel room adjacent to his by switching rooms and passports. Locke soon realizes that his new persona is a gun dealer for the African rebels that he was attempting to report about. He finds this new lifestyle intriguing and tries to make all of the schedule appointments in Mr. Robinson’s schedule. However, nobody seems to show up at most these appointments but in the process he meets a mysterious lady, known as “The Girl.” Throughout the entire film, he is being pursued by both his wife and a hit squad that was trying to kill Mr. Robinson for supplying the rebels with money. The movie ends in a tragic scene in Africa, where Locke is murdered by the hit squad and his wife sees his dead body.

In one scene of the movie, Locke listens to a tape of a conversation that he and Robinson had in the past. What is particularly interesting about this scene is that the conversation is being acted out on the screen at the same time we see Locke listening to the tape in the future in the same room—merging the two times into one image. So in effect, this scene allows the viewer to experience two moments in time simultaneously. In another scene, Locke’s wife and friend watch video tapes of Locke reporting the news. This allows the wife and audience to look at Locke in a previous time and persona—giving us the ability to juxtapose Locke’s new and old personas.

-Christopher Melgaard.

Final Paper - Donnie Darko

For my final paper, I am writing on Donnie Darko. This movie was directed by Richard Kelly in 2001. It’s about a suburban teenager who comes face-to-face with his destiny. I chose this movie in particular because of the element of time travel involved. Donnie is able to take look into his future and use the future to make a decision about the present. By doing this, he collapses time, taking an interval of time and turning it into an instant. In particular, I am going to focus in on the use of opsigns and sonsigns in the film. My biggest concern so far has been finding an academic outside source that isn’t a film review.

Philip Schmidt

The Passenger-Mara

Michaelangelo Antonioni's "The Passanger" is a film that follows David Locke, a reporter, who takes on the life of David Robertson when he unexpectidly dies. They met in Africa when staying in the same hotel and formed a of friendship. After assuming this new identity Locke walks in the footsteps of this other man without knowing what he is getting himself into, Robertson was a gunrunner for African rebels. Along the way he meets "girl" who is a wanderer herself.

The most striking thing to me about this movie was that it was as if the camera was an observer itself, following this man through his life. The movie begins slowly, with few lines, and the audience is just watching. The camera would shift views and look off into the desert, or watch a camel walking, or a wire on the wall, and then go back to watching Locke. The focus was never entirely on the main character or what he was doing. Something would be happening, and then as if the camera's attention got caught by something on the side it would change views, then "remember" what was going on main stage and go back to the main story line

As opposed to distracting me from the film, I actually felt that it enhanced it. Because of the slower pace of the movie, it had the potential to get boring, as many films of these kinds do. I was more intuned to the film because of these changes in direction of the camera. It made me feel more "there" in the movie because I was seeing these tiny details, these random images that are always present in movies but always bypassed. They gave more visual texture to the film that I really liked.

Another thing that I feel that the director did well was the way he did the memory sequences. After Robertson dies, Locke remembers moments with him, listens to recordings of their conversations, as he begins his transformation into Robertson. The change from present time to memory time is subtle and flows. In one part of the room it will be a memory, and then the camera will pan across the building and look in through a window and it's the present.

Over all I enjoyed the film and was suprised that Jack Nicholson was in it, it seemed a different kind of movie than his others.