Hi Im sorry that I'm posting before Morgan has a chance to introduce some questions. I just wanted to blog my immediate reaction to the film. Was anyone else as upset with the documentary as I was? My first issue was that the title seemed to include multiple models and technically there were four but I thought it really only focused on one and for some reason that bothered me. Also, the involvement of the camera bothered me more than the previous films we've seen. It seemed manipulated but not with a poetic intent or some kind of genuine nature behind it. This was the first time in the class where I really asked myself if this was right. I want to know if anything was scripted because at times it felt that way. Is there any way to get some info on that Morgan? That being said, I hope I don't upset anyone that really liked the film. I didn't even hate it I just felt like it was skewed somehow. I'm sure once I think more about the film I will be able to find its merits I just immediately feel like this documentary was made already knowing everything that would take place. If anyone disagrees please let me know why. I'm very curious about someone else's thoughts
Let's keep this conversation going!! I'd like to know more opinions on this controversy over the film. As for the script, I haven't been able to confirm that it was scripted, however, Seidl lists himself as a writer in the credits so that leads me to believe that parts may of been in fact scripted.
Something that struck me was the many scenes where the camera seemed to be behind a mirror. This kind of made me think that maybe in many situations the camera was hidden, or positioned in a way that allowed the subjects to act naturally instead of as if they're being filmed? I too had trouble really figuring out what role the camera played and how much of the film was acted or scripted versus how much of it was "real." I mean, I felt it was compelling, and I think I only forced myself to wonder how much of it was observed actions as opposed to acted ones because I'm in this class.
ReplyDeleteI don't know... I think because personally I'm so self-conscious when I'm in front of a camera, I find it hard to imagine anyone can just do their thing while they are being recorded. The only real point where I can remember the subjects really noting an awareness of being watched was after Vivian got photographed by the old dude and said that she'd no longer be having sex with old men... she seemed to be uttering it to herself at first, but then seemed to note it to someone observing her. Other than that, the camera didn't really seem to have any kind of presence.
So, I felt like their actions seemed authentic (as opposed to, for example, _Summer of Goliath_ where parts definitely felt acted), but likewise, I can't really put together how it worked.
Most of or all of the shots in the film were either medium or long shots of the characters portraying their actions in a very straightforward, all-encompassing way, where we get to see the beginning, middle, and end of each event. For example, the shots where the models were putting on their makeup in front of the club mirror, or when they were changing before going to a club, or the bed scenes. The camera remains hidden throughout the film, secretly spying and allowing us to intimately experience each character. We see and hear everything. The camera lingers longer than it would in a conventional film, and I think that is what I like most about Models.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I noticed that each shot’s composition was very symmetrical and precise, just like the requirements of the models. They needed to have perfect bodies and faces, similar to the camera needing them to be perfectly placed in their typical surroundings. It was as if the models were using photobooth and doing that generic thing that a lot of us do to capture the entirety of an event and have it more exciting and visual pleasing on record than the action actually was. I think if we all compiled our laptop footage, it would look like a bunch of drones imitating reality. “Closer to God” playing on repeat.
This is a list of some films made in 1999:
200 Cigarettes, The Blair Witch Project, Boys Don't Cry, Dogma, Eyes Wide Shut, Fight Club, Girl on the Bridge, Girl Interrupted, The Loss of Sexual Innocence, The Matrix, The Sixth Sense, Superstar, The Virgin Suicides, Ratcatcher
I might be wrong to connect all of these films just because they were made in 1999, but they seem to have similar threads. Self-conscious characters – having to do with the physical being in relation to the space its placed in – the body as an ethereal form/the death of the body – people’s perceptions of each other /the way people’s bodies are viewed – how they are transformed and consumed by materialism –– etc. They all seem to be interconnected mainly by the presence of the physical body in strange (maybe all claustrophobic) settings and/or situations.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_E2uWeSxRO60/TEmjZPDzPFI/AAAAAAAAHQA/PfZ7FwaJh5o/s1600/models5.jpg
ReplyDeleteAs a couple of you said, I also found “Models” to be emotionally difficult to watch at points because it reminded me of the skewed public perceptions of beauty, and all the failed attempts of human communication and consent. And partially what gave the film this power to convey all that, I think, was how incredibly authentic and “real-time” it felt while witnessing really intimate and vulnerable moments. And if it was all fictional acting, I thought it was really impressive ((Although, who’s to say, because I can’t understand/hear inflection in Austrian)). But-- having the spectator situated as the mirror gives special access, as we watch the characters reveal both their personal selves—their flaws, judgments, life philosophies, insecurities, their ambitions, and fantasies—and at the same time, we see them being visually aware of their own reflections (our gaze), and they are constantly physically adjusting, putting on their presentable, “social-self” mask. There is this strange tension of the audience watching how the characters see themselves, and how they sculpt their physical image for social standards of the sphere of life they’re in.
ReplyDeleteIn almost every scene, there was talk or a display of the models deliberating about their bodies, and how best to fit into the role of being an object of beauty/sex. The value they put on aesthetics is at the same level as other, more dire and deep issues in their lives. In one particular mirror scene, two models are changing into different outfits and chatting about style, while going in and out of a very serious conversation about protection and sexual consent. There is such prevalent societal stress (in their business and social life) on the importance of the physical power-play, which is shown throughout the directorial scenes, and in their arguments with boyfriends/male strangers—where they find themselves in the situation of being sexually cornered or feeling obligated.
In the club scenes, you see them share ‘secrets’ of how they use their “sexiness” to get what they want, and to manipulate their way in or out of situations. It seemed that they all really just wanted to be successful women who had control over their lives. But even while they’re confessing, negotiating, or working, trying to be heard and taken seriously—the very tool/weapon they are using (their self-objectifying sexuality) to try to elevate themselves, is also the societally-ingrained ingredient of the cyclical disempowerment they face. In each scene with a man, the authority of the situation immediately turns over to the male, who directs, his judgment/standards, along with his physical ultimatums. In scenes with males the women have no voice and little control—we only see their pose and social mask. But in scenes with the mirror, and in close conversations between the women, we get to see their actual thought process/struggle in trying to negotiate finding self-empowerment in a visual-valuing society that the models play to, but also are caught up within.
Models is a really loaded film. The comments about the camera as mirror is really interesting and is really put to the forefront in this film. I also really like what you had to say Luara!
ReplyDeleteI was constantly questioning the truthfulness of this film-- due to the women constantly looking into the camera, "mirror effect", and how staged some of the shots felt (like the shot with one of the girls and the African American in the bathroom or the few shots of the inside of the club). or maybe it was bad acting?? i don't know
Also, the locations that the film was shot at were really limited- only focusing on the club(mainly the bathroom) , taxi's/ car, apartments/ bedrooms, and photo studio). Where is the rest of these models lives? I think this choice of sliming down of locations pushes out how constructed the film and models lives are in this film. It becomes this viscous cycle of drugs,not eating, plastic surgery, puking, sex, and the girls becomes lost in the direction they want to go with their lives. or maybe this is reality. reality and fiction become so blended it hard to make a definite decision.
duration of shots and how passive the camera was reminded me a lot about the Hospital film we watched!
The second reading helped me better understand what made this film so uncomfortable. I found one quote from the article helpful: "The aesthetic of the film is neither documentary, with real people in real environments doing their everyday work, nor fictional, giving a casually developed account of possible occurrences in a probable environment . It takes elements from both strands to morph them into a kind of hyperrealism that works on a more symbolic level... this tendency towards hyperrealism is accomplished by constantly exaggerating what is shown." I feel like this leaves more questions for the viewer to answer personally about what Seidl is showing them because his explicitness and exaggeration seems to evoke a universal discomfort. Perhaps with models I am relateing to the character's issues with body image and constant self conciousness.
ReplyDelete