24 hour psycho - Douglas Gordon, 2 frames/second, no sound
Expanded Cinema - breaking the literary and static narrative of the unique image of cinema, questions exhibition spaces etc.
NB: equals to the lag that we get with digi device and the internet. This is commonplace now in personal viewing.
highlights the moving image - the images between motion and the motion images themselves that.. what are these in-between frames? it is played frame by frame but you can clearly see in most cases of major motion a transparent double of two different frames. is this effect in the process of capturing the image or of projecting the image. that is a little confusing as the motion picture camera should in theory capture individual images and the playing of them in fast motion will trick it into movement. the scenes of fast motion are so interesting. the complete blur of the final knife plunge is really hypnotic. the fast motion of the water falling means that the water is mostly in focus and vivid drops, and yet the body/movement is blurred. like a rotating wheel and the trick of movement, the water looks like it is going backwards
slowing down the scenes that in reality speed function in a way that is nearly subconscious 0- too fast to clearly read them, but enough to gather the illustrated picture of violence and speed and death, here the speed is slowed to the point where the comprehensible shots seem looong as fuck, almost to absurdity.
this scene of psycho is interesting to use in itself - the villains female that deserves to die, the castrated male. From memory i think that Hitcock was really interested in Freud? All of this ties back to the monstrous feminine…
Just a great example of what playing with time in film can produce. It’s just something that really fascinates me - this illusion and our state of believing? gullibility? An interesting reflection on what our eyes and brain do to the outside world. Just makes me think that our perception and experience of an event or thing is totally different from what that thing actually is. While film and cinema has become something that is a shared experience, every individuals perception will be different? Or is it that we have investigated the eye and the vision that the eye produces so much that we can pinpoint the experience of the viewer - in regular film, say a long-shot. But once you start to play with these factors that mimic the eyes real-life input, you start to play with peoples perception (i.e. the edition of editing). once this perception is ingrained to be used to something (i.e. editing of a conversation in traditional cinema, using the 360 degree rule; basic editing of time lapse = distance etc) Playing with that brings our base experience further up to a new level (we automatically read film in a way that can make time lapses etc), where the next cinematic technique/technology is played with and it keeps going up. The idea of levelling up the human perception to have an ingrained knowledge of cinema and technology as a natural and unconscious reading is really interesting to me - it is like a language and that we can all speak it fluently without thinking. What happens is that more “words” are added, different languages? (ie technologies are added). With art you can totally hang this upside down and play with this cinematic language so that it confuses a persons perception of film, and therefore really the real world right? Because these cognitive actions are so inherent and unconscious that we start to wonder about everything? Nothing is really real and everything is a construct.
