Review
The
most obvious faction of this film, and the one I am sure most people will
comment on, is the shift from location to location (is there another aspect of
this movie?). The camera slowly pans over various locations, seemingly going
from a more natural world to a more modern and industrialized world. One scene
depicts the desert, with its overhearing hear, sandy terrain, and orange glow.
Another scene is of the inner city; cars move bumper to bumper, people live in
squalor with disheveled homes and garbage-ridden streets. Another location was
vacant high altitude mountains with clouds climbing over the tops like water
over a rock. As the movie progressed the scene grow more focused on human
activity. The music changed to a faster paced up swing beat, and the time laps
became noticeably more rapid. The pace became more and more rapid almost to the
point of anxiety.
Reaction
koyaanisqatsi is
a background movie at best; something to put on while one is working on
something else. It is not a movie to sit down and watch for fun. To sit at
watch this hour and a half movie, without any other distraction was difficult
to say the least. I was still waiting for the movie to start thirty minutes in,
before I gave up and accepted that the movie did not have any dialog, plot, or
story arch, or any other norms of basic story structure. Yet it did prove to be
easy to find a niche to write about concerning philosophy. I don’t think that
interpretation will be at all unique to the rest of the class. I am sure that
most of the other students will share a similar understanding of koyaanisqatsi.
Interpretation
Some
of the locations shown in the film are opposite of each other, i.e. desert, bat
infested caves, inner city etc. Each place has proved habitable by humans and
other animals, given the correct circumstance. Each plane of existence comes
with its own set of unique rules. To survive in any given location, it is vital
to play by each location’s rules or social norms. It is common sense that if a
person wants to thrive in a mountainous climate, then preparing for lowland desert conditions is counterproductive and will likely end in death. In order to be successful in
the civilized world, or any world where people are involved, one must live by
the social norms, or at least mimic the social norms, so as not to be viewed as
an outsider. Driving on the streets requires enormous amounts of cooperation
and adherence to laws and social norms, if this were not so, then driving or
walking around streets would be a vastly more dangerous place.
The
rules of working on a construction site are different from that of the social
norms of going to church. Many of the rules are not interchangeable; for
instance swearing and making noise is normal on a job site, but highly
discouraged at church. This is the basis for Deleuze's interpretation of
Foucault’s theory of disciplinary societies. If these location-based rules are
broken the individual can find him or herself demoted in social standing.
Alternatively, if the rules are followed and expectations of are exceeded, the
individual can be promoted. Without social norms people would have no reason to
feel connected to one another, thus it would be more difficult for us to form
communities.
The
fast paced nature of the movie towards the end indicates that in order to
survive in the modern world where technology dominates, one must adapt a fasted
paced consumerist lifestyle. To live a social and prosperous life, one needs to
adapt the characteristics of society, such as eating the local foods, buying
buss passes, and getting drivers license. To deny ones self of these qualities
means to live as an outcaste, thus demoting themselves in the eyes of society.
The
fact that the film itself shares no resemblance to most other films, also could
characterize Foucault’s theory The film industry, should not be exempt form
thriving on general guidelines, but it is. Generally, in order for a film, or
book for that matter to be popular it should follow typical story structure
guidelines. Most stories have a protagonist, a plot, a setting or even dialog.
This film did not need any of that to get the points across. The music and
images were enough to tell a full story. After a little research I found out
that koyaanisqatsi ranks # 97 in best documentaries since its
release date in 1983, which is fairly good, falling short of Blackfish by
only 9 spots. This means that Foucault is wrong in this aspect. This director
made a movie outside of the box, and it seems to have captured an audience. To
me this means that the film industry defies the theory of disciplinary
societies. Perhaps in artistic professions, it is advantageous to occasionally
break the mold, and try something new and diverse.
Work Cited
Deleuze,
G. (2011). Postscript on Societies of Control. Mit Press, 59,
3-7. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/778828
.
Documentary.
(n.d.). Retrieved June 01, 2016, from http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm
Kerr,
S. (2015). Three Minute Theory: What are Societies of Control? Retrieved June
01, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onZ1U4jKJdk
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we do live in a fast pace world and that there are demands for keeping up with this moving world. I also agree that the location were in a sequence of opposite but at the same time they had a similar pattern such as the time-lapse of the cars and the people moving in the train station. I think that this was the reason of the showing of this film to help us understand the meaning of rhizomes and the meanings that Deleuze and Guattari were trying to portray.
ReplyDeleteYour comments about our ability to cope in varying environments is an interesting one to tease out further. While at some levels of observation (e.g. some of those from the film where cities like New York, Las Vegas, Chicago, Atlanta - are nearly indistinguishable from each other) the patterns of late-modern, developed society are perfectly transportable and replicable, at the same time we still butt up against nature. For example, Gallagher, in "The Power of Place" describes how we've tried to import modern work practices into more extreme environments like Alaska only to have the incidence of modern afflictions like Seasonal Affective Disorder appear and increase dramatically. The paradox is that we have successfully and unsuccessfully replicated patterns regardless of context.
ReplyDeleteYour later observations about the film also link nicely with D&G's ideas of heterogeneity and multiplicity. That is, could it be that the degree to which the film replicates patterns of other, successful, films depends on the criteria? So, if the criteria is an arc and a story - arguably there is one despite the fact that there is no dialogue (but perhaps still has a plot, and even characters - "society" rather than a specific actor). Or, if you make the postmodern move to assert that "text" or "narrative" exceed and don't require formal language to cary meaning nevertheless, then perhaps it's not all that different?
Colton,
ReplyDeleteYour interpretation of the film was one that caught my interest from the beginning. The connection between music and adaptability was not something that came to mind when I was pondering the film, though I did notice the changes in music throughout. You put a lot of emphasis on location as being an important aspect of this film, which I certainly agree with, though I wonder, do the locations that were presented throughout the scene really matter all that much? What I'm asking is, if other locations were chosen that had patterns of similar behavior over time, with varying structures, would the film still be as successful? This question leads into my next point. In discussing social norms, you explain that in order for one to be successful, he or she must abide by norms established in society. Wouldn't this mean there was never a possibility for change? It is interesting, because while you point this out, you also explain that Kooyaanisqatsi does not follow the norms of film making, yet, you still consider it to be successful. So maybe, norms aren't the measurement of success everywhere.
I don't think that the specific locations were what made the film as powerful. I do believe however, that the diversity of locations was necessary. It showed that the world is a diverse place, with opposing rules of nature. If the film were to just show inner-city, without further dialog, the audience would not understand the monotony of our lives
DeleteI don't think that the specific locations were what made the film as powerful. I do believe however, that the diversity of locations was necessary. It showed that the world is a diverse place, with opposing rules of nature. If the film were to just show inner-city, without further dialog, the audience would not understand the monotony of our lives
DeleteColton, I loved your interpretation. I especially liked the connection you made between the social norms and adaptability of people to their environments to Deleuze's enterpretation of Focault's theory of disciplinary societies. It works very well. I also liked the focus on Music and its escalating intensity throughout the film. I think it is a potent effect that it has on the viewer of this film.
DeleteColton, I loved your interpretation. I especially liked the connection you made between the social norms and adaptability of people to their environments to Deleuze's enterpretation of Focault's theory of disciplinary societies. It works very well. I also liked the focus on Music and its escalating intensity throughout the film. I think it is a potent effect that it has on the viewer of this film.
DeleteI found your interpretation to be rather interesting, I especially like your own little critique of Foucault right at the end. One thing that you brought up that I had never thought about was the rule structure/social norms that were indirectly depicted with each differing scene, given your example of the work site. Looking back on the film, I can see the connections between many of the scenes and how they were contrasted between each other, showing differing social norms that were required to be productive or fluent, which created an organized system where everything seemed to flow so smoothly.
ReplyDeleteColton, this is a very interesting interpretation and I think you pointed out a lot of important factors of the film that I would never have thought of. My question for you is, What do you think the scene of the buildings collapsing, or the bombs exploding symbolize in terms of adaptability and disciplinary societies?
ReplyDeleteI thought that it showed that although Mother Nature has its own rules, it can still be conquered by man. Technology has allowed us to blur the lines between disciplines.
DeleteI like your interpretation of the film, its structure and content. I especially like how you analyzed the film and its lack of plot, dialog, and a protagonist. While the film lacks those things, though, it still follows the structure of a film in some ways. Like art, we give it meaning. We give it a plot. The movie itself still has a soundtrack and a setting. As for the movie industry, what if is finished, as Deleuze described institutions of prison, school and family? There would be reforms, it would change, but not entirely. Over time, it would be confined again. The movie itself still follows the genre of experimental movies. This genre emerged in the 1920s, and it explores non-narrative forms. Did the movie present new tools, or was it influenced by movies before it of the same genre?
ReplyDeleteRania Ampntel Chafint
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI liked your insight on how people have to adapt themselves to social norms to survive in a various locations / environments around the world. I agree that the diversity of locations was necessary for the film to make the points across. Whether in Tokyo or Chicago, the characteristics of the society of control are so apparent and significant. Many of us believe that we are free agents who are capable of choosing where to live, which language to speak, or how we educate ourselves. However, as the film portrays, there is usually not much room for a free will. Therefore, we either follow the social norms or mimic them, like you mentioned. This train of thought reminded me a documentary called “Human Planet” by BBC. This documentary shows how people around the world adapt themselves to their given circumstances to survive (and thrive). When I watch the documentary, I often question why some people choose to live in an environment that seems so inhospitable. Although, what I soon realize is that the idea or the knowledge that you can or should move elsewhere is a notion that is constructed in the society I live in. People living in that environment might not have the notion at all. There is a possibility that, for them, it is a virtue to die in a community they were born. Or, there is a possibility that there are simply no means to get out of the place they live…
ReplyDeleteIf you haven’t seen the documentary, I highly recommend it! (available on Netflix)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HiUMlOz4UQ
Ai Ishii