Insight on Interventions, Experimental Films, and Creativity

With the films we saw in class and the Intervention project coming up, I am even more unsure of what an Intervention actually is. My understanding of an intervention is just putting something of art where it usually isn't found. 

I've had a lot a trouble with experimental film as a whole. I find it confusing but yet somewhat intriguing. It seems like I can can make a film about virtually anything and it can be conceived as a great work of art. I have trouble thinking that this idea exists. My brain works on mathematics and logic, but when I watch experimental media, I feel that I am missing the formula to make a great experimental film like the ones we see in class.

Before I go on with this blog, which may turn out to be a long one (I guess I'm probably making up for missed blogs), I feel like this blog may be a good time to reflect not only on this class but also my first year in the film department and how it relates to this class. So here goes the rest. 

I find film school a little bit frustrating for a few reasons. First is caused by grade school. I knew during grade school that I seemed to be stripped of my creativity, but now here in film school I see that grade school certainly did do just that. Granted I worked with film, well, mainly editing and producing sports and educational shows, I see now that I'm having trouble trying to find that creativity to work on films outside of editing. I'm going to this school for editing, but in order to succeed here, I need to find my creativity. 

But then I hit a snag: what makes an experimental film a good film? Unfortunately, I have not found this answer. I was hoping to find it in this class, but I failed on doing so. Is there an easy explanation? Is it based one interpretations of others?

So back to the invention, I mean, intervention. It sure seems like the intervention has to essentially an invention. Obviously the creative factor has to present in this project, but it the project seems so easy. It seems so broad, but I feel like it is also within limits. Maybe I'm just making things way too complicated than what they really are. The interventions that I have seen in lecture and and in discussion brought some light to what an intervention is. I need to create something in a place where there is no creativity. I just realized while writing this that an intervention is basically the same thing I need to do to get my creativity back. Insert creativity where creativity is not usually present.   

What a film is all about.

Frampton explains that a film is about the most, or the meaning of the film is a noticeable and occurring part of a film or object in a film. Gunvor Nelson's "Natural Features" can have many defining meanings. It can be argued that the film is about an occurring object which this film contains many examples. In the film we see a paintbrush acting as a transition or the leader of the film. Another example is the continuous occurrence of faces. Faces are sculpted or painted throughout this film. The other occurring par of this film would be the shrieking soundtrack. The screams throughout the film make haunted houses look pitiful at spots. My opinion of what this film is about is deception. The faces, paintbrush and soundtrack all fit into this explanation. The faces change, but in fact seem like one or two people by the soundtrack. The paintbrush is the author of the film because it changes what we see and decides when we see it. This film made us seriously look at what the filmmaker was trying to accomplish. I think tat this was deception, and that the film was about something more, but I could not comprehend it due to the art of deception that "Natural Features" presented.   

Trying to keep up with math, film and these blogs.

I have always had an interest in math but have never heard of anyone compare it to art other than M.C. Esher's works of art. During the lecture James Benning did his presentation and the whole time I did not get how it was supposed to relate to filmmaking. I realized the next day that the math lecture was for us to relate the lecture to film in the way we want. I went over his lecture again, and saw many relations to filmmaking.

1) The Pythagorean Theorem showed us the films don't have to be silent to get a message across. This is shown when Benning did his proof of the theorem without talking or at least mostly not talking. 

2) Imperfections are not a bad thing. Math, the universal language, has problems with working out, well, problems. Film has the same set back but this problems are not bad. They in fact help the understanding of the film as they do to the understanding of math. 

3) Benning mentions that prime numbers have no purpose, but yet people write many dissertations in prime numbers. Benning puts in his opinion on this and say that its "beautiful." The subject of films can be interpreted in the same way. It is beautiful to explore subjects that are unordinary through films.