As the title asks, did anyone else watch this and barely notice the lack of motion in the film?
While watching this, it's like my mind filled the gaps and virtually animated the film in the back of my head. It was really one of the main reasons I fell in love with this short, and so I'm curious if anyone else felt the same way.
Yes, there was something almost magical about the way the succession of stills made you FEEL that they were moving
It's a really sly piece of filmmaking
And, I found the story (tho simple) so touching and absorbing that I forgot I was watching stills about 5 minutes into it
The images aren't completely still though because they're actually from moving film that was destroyed. Maybe the subtle 'shuddery' movements because of this helped create that effect? But yeah, I had the same reaction to the film.
share"The images aren't completely still though because they're actually from moving film that was destroyed."
Really?
"I came to Paris this evening, I came to Paris. The rain has been falling the sun is gone."
Not at all. All the stills have been taken with a Pentax Spotmatic camera (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Spotmatic).
share
Conceptually it reminded me of fast-forwarding through a videotape. While you would think stills would "slow things down," actually more information is packed into a shorter time frame, since each scene is seen for only a few seconds.
interesting point of view, indeed i did feel that i was filling in for the gaps between the stills, the movie seemed very alive despite using stills.
however the stills are in themselves a point within the movie, leading towards the only moment when there's movement in the film (when she is laying in bed and she blinks her eyes) my teacher was discussing this in class today; that that moment is not past or future, but present, it's the only moment he has access to the presence, the moment he really lives and experiences
and it's so beautiful..
the short is beautiful, touching, stunning visually well i too fell in love with it
It plays more like an illustrated narrative (like a book with pictures) than like a movie, but it is interesting that stills are all that's needed to present us with representations of things that are familiar in film. It's sort of eliminating all the unnecessary stuff and only showing us the markers we need to grasp the story. And of course because so much is left up to us to invest in it, we feel more involved than we would if we just watched things happening on film.
"Do you realise that Otto spelled backwards is Otto?"
[deleted]
YES!!!
I was searching the discussion board wishing someone had noticed this!
I did, it was like the frames weren't still, but like the characters remain still while the camera is taping them. I don't know if that makes sense.
And there's the girl in the bed scene, where Marker played on that concept by showing her movement.
Which makes me really wonder how the "movie" was shot. Did he use a 35mm film still camera?
Really fascinating!
While watching this, it's like my mind filled the gaps and virtually animated the film in the back of my head.
When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...share
Yes. I found myself mesmerised by the quiet and soothing narration and the wonderful music. The film didn't move, but I was moved.
Never test the depth of the water with both feetshare