Thom Anderson's video essay Los Angeles Plays Itself (2003) presented the duality between fiction and non-fiction. In the beginning of the film the narrator declares;
"If we can appreciate documentaries for their dramatic qualities, then we can view fiction for their documentary qualities."
This brings me to present to you for thought some of the questions he presented to us:
How do fiction movies shape our reality?
Do they then become our reality and thus become documentary?
What about when fiction works grow old and then become historical documents for a period in time?
Between the research-based nature of the film and the fact that it was almost 3 hours long, I think there are many avenues for discussion here. Feel free to ponder one of these questions, or explore this documentary in relation to the others we've seen, delve into thoughts about the city itself and how it is presented to us (tone, pov), discuss the 'white male' perspective that he delves into towards the end of the film, anything! Let's here some awesome discussion this week! Let's crash the site from all the traffic and enthusiasm!!!
I really enjoyed the way the film was edited, even if initially I was confused at the idea of one movie being made up of portions of a variety of movies. I thought it was poetic that it still retained a level of documentary within these clips by showing the same place, and how the atmosphere of the place changes within each film- even though the place itself may remain relatively the same such as the contrast between the house in 'Blade Runner' and how it was projected in 'House on the Haunted Hill'.
ReplyDeleteI also liked the architectural comments, and that in some ways he showed the life span of certain buildings- as they were projected at different points in history through cinema, and whether or not they are presently in use.
I like the question about fiction becoming documentary through our perception and application of it as our own reality.
It's a lot like dreaming in that respect.
Our dreams often contain small elements of reality, what we did, how we felt, what we want to do etc. things that have become so conditioned in our thoughts that we ingrain them in our subconscious.
Something that moves us within.
But it then gets manipulated and is often taken in a completely different direction into fiction.
In a lot of ways I do think that the consistency in fiction from an era, just like tangible art (painting, etching etc.), says a lot about the experiences or concerns of that time.
Is everything a documentary in some way? But there's a distinctive difference between how we understand fiction and documentary to exist. How much of it is needed to be "factual" for it to be "valid" as a documentary?
Just speculating over here.
Thom Anderson's video essay Los Angeles Plays Itself made me think a lot about place and space in video and how that can be embraced or so easily manipulated. How the Film Industry has been able to create this sub-world within our society. Also, how this manipulation starts to control certain aspects of society and culture is something else I find fascinating.
ReplyDelete3hr was too long for me. At certain points I was extremely bored and felt like Anderson was stretching out his point. It felt like he had all these films he wanted to use as examples but didn't necessarily need to use them all.
as a doc I'm still unsettled about it. I really like Anderson's Idea of viewing "fiction for their documentary qualities" ---- i think its unsettling for me because all we see on the screen (most of the time) are Hollywood films. So as a viewer we are in this fake world, only brought out of it into reality through Anderson's narration (and pointing out of movie spots/ history of architecture/place) . This layering of fake sub-world, then narration (reality), and then concrete reality is really interesting.
I agree that it felt way too long. I felt bad for zoning out as much as i did, but it was really excruciating at a certain point.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the structure of the film was really interesting. Structurally I found it more reminiscent of nonfiction literature than cinema. The narration in itself could probably function as a written essay without much adjustment, but the fact that its talking about films makes the film format really effective in showing us its sources and proving its point. This was something I'd never seen before, and it offers some really interesting opportunities.
Two things for me:
ReplyDeleteSince we've been discussing narration between the week before and this one, I definitely took notice of how it operated in this film. I had trouble at first figuring out what to pay attention to, between the images, the narration, and on top of that, the titles of the films (I had a similar problem with the first movie from the week before), but it seemed like a rhythm was adopted to make it easier to go with the flow (either that, or I just got used to it). I felt like his narration would slip into Documentary Film Narration for awhile, then I'd get pulled out of it by some of his snarky comments (such as his distaste for calling Los Angeles "LA"). I liked that he would take the movie into his personal relationship with the city... it helped keep that flow from becoming a lull, especially in that long three hours. I agree that it did get a little tedious in some ways, but it also kind of had the same effect as The Clock where scenes from movies I recognized delighted me in some way.
Second point, on how scenes for movies filmed in Los Angeles act as a document of the city in a way: I think this idea that even fiction films in a way document something works better with some things than other. Place/location is the most obvious, as movies shot in specific locations show that location, and even if that place isn't what we're told it is, or we don't see a complete view of the place, that isn't very different from how some documentaries operate. Another example that I thought of has to do with the reference to a specific movie (I forget which one) that the filmmaker highlighted as one that shows how things from a certain era... clothing, hairstyles, cars, buildings, etc... are an amalgam of those things from that period and every time before it. I guess this has to do with the whole "historical document" thing. I have recently seen two classic 80s movies that really kind of made this point, Total Recall and Red Dawn. Both movies are set "in the future," but both are so inescapably EIGHTIES... the clothing, the hairstyles, the music, etc. The filmmaker's oft used example of Blade Runner works in the same way, I guess. You can frequently tell what decade a film was made during just from the look and feel of it, even if it takes place during a different time, which may be a form of document itself.
The film was entertaining for about the first hour. After that it started to drag on like a bad PBS documentary we are forced to watch in gade school. The content was interesting but the way it was presented was repetitive. I think if it was shorter it would not have beed so bad.
ReplyDeleteIt was an interesting technique just using different clips from movies I was impressed with how many clips and movies there were. I found myself continuously writing down the title of a movie that seemed interesting. Altho there were times when the same movie would be used in each different section over and over again. Altogether I think it would have been successful if it was at least an hour shorter.
For some reason, 3 hrs wasn't that long for me. I felt like every aspect of Las Angeles that Anderson talked about was integral to shaping the image of the city and it was filled with so much more nuance than I would have realized if I hadn't seen all the films arranged in such a way. My initial frustration was because I wasn't seeing any of Anderson's own recordings or documentation of the city but I think that would have been too obvious of a move if that makes any sense.
ReplyDeleteI was really interested in the relics left by each film of the architecture or even typical experiences, like going grocery shopping or to the gas station. I wrote down a quote: "Nostalgia has always been the dominant note in the city's image of itself." The films use the same buildings or similar ones to shoot or always try to create these iconic experiences. That fixation is very interesting. You can see nostalgia throughout the whole documentary and I think thats where I wondered about Morgan's question of fiction shaping reality.
I also was very interested in perspective when watching this film whether it was Anderson's or a filmmaker. I think the reason why this film was so long was because Anderson wanted to present so many perspectives of hollywood from its filmmakers. They do provide many with a perspective of Las Angeles. I have never been to Las Angeles, so the perspective I get from these filmmakers is my only real perspective. I don't believe every film I see that takes place in Las Angeles or anything, but I appreciate that Anderson gives you information with these films. Seeing the over exaggerated hollywood films made the political dynamics behind them more apparent to me.
I Really enjoyed the consistent stream of juxtaposing clips from across eras of American film industries’ mental and physical environments. Example after example gave me a growing sense of how the different phases of Hollywood, and US culture, fantasize and idealize the world as they try to re-present reality. I thought it was funny how he was sensitive with his city-pride to the phase where everyone “hated los angeles,” because many action movies had disasters take place there, and showed the city in a negative light. But it could have easily have been due to a rise in demand (or, created demand) for action movies with explosions and violent special effects from the growing technological capabilities. Maybe the dystopian future, crime ridden, and grimy portraits painted were a reaction to a national feeling of threat to similar themes in their own worlds, and LA became objectified as a character, in its own way. It became a “prime example” of whatever sinful typifications society needed to deal with at the time. And perhaps those portrayals were meant to spur reflection, questions and improvements. Especially as compared to each other in those concise visual clips, between times, genres, narratives and locations-- the mix gives you an overall sense of the aesthetic (if not communicative habits) of the filmmaker and the audience: The producers and consumers of visual culture. It also shows the repetitions and changing cultural ideals, conventions, technological abilities, and perceptions of the world. In this way, the “Los Angeles plays itself” speaks about the visually produced interpretations that the film medium communicates to/from/with mass culture, becoming a document of the reality of visual culture across time. The ways in which stories are told around/about such an iconic location is a way to see a shifting path of cultural identity expressed through mass-communicated arts in local and global levels at the same time.
ReplyDelete