If you have ever witnessed, firsthand, the birth of a cow or seen a recently-born cow, you might notice that the most amazing part of that calf is a pair of huge, brown eyes. They're glossy, yet perceptive, taking in absolutely everything that comes within its sight range. When I saw the icon for Window Water Baby Moving on youtube, I thought that I saw one of those beautiful warm eyes staring back at me. I had no idea what that cow eye could have to do with a window or a baby, but I accepted it. And then I saw things that cannot be unseen.
I've got to put it out there - I am bisexual. I have a vagina of my own, and have seen other ladies' lady parts. But man, I was *not* expecting what I saw on that screen in the middle of the library with Jen Werf. First off, the vagina is a weird-looking bit of flesh. I don't particularly like looking at mine in real life, nevermind seeing someone else's blown up on a computer screen to approximately the size of my head - even if it is being artistically shown with pretty fantastic lighting and camera angles. In fact, it was that lighting, the simple-yet-complex crisscrossing pattern on the woman's stomach, that made it bearable. And then I saw it: my calf eye. But it wasn't a calf's eye. It was a baby shoving it's way through a rather pained-looking woman's hoo-hah. I preferred my theory, so I went with it. Strangely enough, Brackhage's essay seems to imply that this is a good idea. Observe:
"...squint, give the visual objects at hand their freedom, and allow the distant to come to you..."
Sidenote: I'm about to be pretty crude.
The one thing that bothered me most about the film was the major continuity...thing that I saw. In the beginning of the film, preggo hops on into the tub sporting a bush reminiscent of one in the final scenes of the movie Waiting. (If you haven't seen it, count yourself lucky. If you have, just think about Naomi and "It's so angry!") However, shortly thereafter, she enters the tub again, this time clean shaven. From 1970s crotch-fro to pornstar smooth in seconds flat. That was just odd to me.
Speaking of continuity, I watched Mothlight immediately following Window Water Baby Moving. There was almost a continuity between the two. The red wash, the veins of the wings mimicking the veins of the (incredibly squelchy) afterbirth, the somewhat jarring switch from one image/shot to the next, and the (apparent) repetition of images all seemed to flow nicely. I'm sure that wasn't Brakhage's intention, but it was just one of those odd things.
Also in the article, he says, "Nowhere in its mechanical process does the camera hold either mirror or candle to nature." I could be dead wrong, but I feel like that says something very telling about his work. The three videos I watched were exclusively nature-based: trees, butterfly/moth wings, and childbirth. While the camera angles, lighting, and (artificial) coloration can influence the way we feel about these subjects, there's no way that the camera itself can create such an image. It's completely real, yet entirely artificial for us - we aren't there to witness it, thus it's open to our interpretation. But isn't that what he wants?
I'll be honest; Brakhage's article confused me a whole lot. If the videos were somewhat perplexing in their choppiness, the article took that to the "Nth" degree. So there's a whole lot of "bwuh?" going on in my head.
And since I've already referenced Ryan Reynolds, I'll do it again.
"Birds of a feather flock to *vagina*."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I applaud you for making this blog! I pondered doing one for a second, but my thoughts just weren't coherent enough to warrant a full blog.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that her crotch-fro was completely gone by the birthing scene and that amused me... We talked for a bit in class about the ways in which we normally see vaginas and pornstar-smooth, as you aptly put it, is one of those ways. Probably Mrs. Brakhage just wanted to help out her doctor's visibility, but I think Brakhage himself might've been taking a jab at his viewers and their preconceived (no pun) notions of vaginas. "Yes, enjoy this shot of my wife's porntastic vagina... AND NOW WATCH IT OOZING BLOOD AND BABY!"
(and this is why I couldn't make a blog... haha)
I really loved Mothlight and how rapid-fire his abstractions are. Seeing twigs, leaves, wings passing by the screen and knowing that they're actually real was interesting for me in light of the quote you posted. Brakhage thinks cameras cannot truly reflect the actual power of nature... so it's weird to me that he would put organic objects on filmstock knowing they would be shown in a cinematic setting. Does that make sense? Hmm.
Like Christina, I had intentions for a moment of doing a blog for this one but a whole bunch of factors contributed to it not taking flight.
ReplyDeleteSince we're mainly discussing the birthing film, I'll focus on that one.
I'll tell you what, and this is going to sound lame, but when the birth really started to into the heavy goings, I wasn't completely focused on the film because I had heard rumblings that during childbirth, things tend to come out of just about everywhere, if you know what I mean. My mind tends to hold onto things and pull them out again at often inopportune times, or even just walking through the grocery store. I didn't want to risk storing something in my head that I'd later regret.
But other than that, the birth seemed like something that would sit in their personal collection of videos. Clearly his wife knows he's a film guy, and clearly they'll love their baby, so they both might have an appreciation for the film. But as far as that film having an incredibly large audience beyond that, I don't know. I saw bits and pieces once, and I think I'm spent.
But his other works were a bit more gentle on the eyes, yep, even the moth one. I don't quite get them entirely but as I stated in another blog reply, they were indeed beautiful pieces of art.
Kitty,
ReplyDeletefirst, <3
second, continuity is important. LOL
third, as we discussed in class, our brains are constantly trying to make stories of things that aren't really stories or just aren't meant to be stories. So Brakhage's films were connected by nature, how we made that connection in the first place is beyond me... especially since most of the class was trying not to focus on the trauma of birth that had just happened. Though, as I mentioned in my blog as well, the continuity of nature throughout the three is really present.
"AND NOW WATCH IT OOZING BLOOD AND BABY!"
ReplyDeleteI snerked. Seriously, my laptop almost got an orange-mango juice shower. But that is a good point. He shows something that's supposed to be satisfying in some way, but does so in a way that makes you kind of not want to see it. And by "kind of", I mean "really, really". Again I'll compare the wings to placenta in that they both have veins going on. Moths and butterflies are different, yes, but look at the wings of even a moth. They can be incredibly beautiful, yet the way they're shown in the film is almost grotesque. They're severed, crumbled, and made nigh-transparent. Definitely not as lovely as a live wing in person.
Hmm. Interesante.
Eric - I assume you're referring to poop. And certainly, poop images popping into your head during grocery shopping can put a major hamper on your desire to even consider food. (I didn't notice any poop, so you know. Probably safe to watch.)
Good to know. Perhaps I'll give it another gander.
ReplyDeleteI was partly joking, I get that everyone does it so it's not a huge deal. But I don't imagine I'll ever enjoy seeing a birth unless it is my child being born. This one did nothing for me. Quite frankly, I wanted it to be over a lot quicker than it was.
I imagine it would have been more...enjoyable(?) if there was some sound. An instrumental soundtrack, the wife screaming, something. The silence did seem to make it last longer.
ReplyDeleteSidenote: I'm in the process of working on my blog for Strangelove, so every third word that pops into my head is evoking a "that's what she said" from the dirty part of my brain.
Which is most of it.
Ok, all of it.
Your point about nature being the common thread through all three of Brakhage's shorts is very well taken. You might consider also, what he does with his film and cinematography in terms of how we look at nature, but also how we use our eyes, period. Jen's point about the brain insisting on making stories even when there aren't any is exactly what Brakhage is asking us to examine.
ReplyDeleteIt might be useful also, rather than being all EEK EEK, VAGINA, EEK!! to look at his film as a series of abstractions--color, texture, light and shadow, and suspend your judgment momentarily, in favor of your eyes, seeing something for the very first time.