MovieChat Forums > Eye Myth (1977) Discussion > SOMEBODY HELP EXPLAIN

SOMEBODY HELP EXPLAIN


SOMEONE TELL ME WHY THIS IS GOOD.
IT'S NINE SECONDS OF NOTHING BUT CRAZY COLORS AND STIRRED IMAGES.
THEY'RE NOT EVEN VERY WELL CONSTRUCTED.

reply

I loved it.

This link might shed some light on it:
http://www.film-think.com/2006/06/eye-myth-brakhage.html

reply

Cinema enthusiasts tend to evolve over three stages of progress regarding their understanding of the medium. The first is cinematic infancy, in which most viewers remain stranded for their lives. This stage is marked by an obsession with things like plot and characters. Superficial entertainment reigns supreme, and plot and story are everything. The viewer, in this stage, is only seeing one dimension of cinema (the storytelling dimension), but it is the only dimension he knows. The next stage of cinematic growth -- one might say adolescence -- involves a newfound understanding of the subtextual layers of cinema. This stage is marked by intellectual growth on the viewer's part, and an increased appreciation for themes, ideas, messages, et cetera. Thematic depth and subtextual profundity are appreciated on a level the first-stage viewer can't fathom. In this second stage, the second dimension of cinema becomes visible. Content. Not simply "how entertaining is the film", but "how much does it have to say", "what is it saying", and "is it saying it well". In my experience, it's only about 1 or 2% of the viewing public that ever even approaches this second stage. Which is okay. Not all of us can be cinema nerds and obsess over movies our whole lives. For those of us who do, however, this progression seems to be inevitable. Finally, one reaches cinematic maturity in the third stage. The third dimension of cinema is opened to the viewer, which is much more difficult to verbalize than the first two. It can best be described in one word: poetry. Viewers at this stage will begin to gain an appreciation for not just the film's entertainment foundation, and not just its content and thematic core, but now comes a newfound appreciation for the film's form. Aesthetic concerns, stylistic achievements, visual poetry -- these things begin to stand out, and the eye begins to understand them without assistance or support from the brain. Just as the brain must learn to recognize ideas and themes in the second stage, the eye must learn to recognize beauty and poetry in the third stage. I've known people for whom these last two stages were reversed. But for most viewers, it seems to be the cinematic brain that develops first, then the cinematic eye afterward.

Okay, so what's the point of this didactic rambling that I've wasted your time with? Well, really, it's quite simple. The point is this: If you can't see why Brakhage's film is good, then I can't tell you. No one can. If you can't see it, your eye hasn't developed to the stage where it can recognize that particular kind of beauty. Or maybe it has, and maybe your definition of beauty simply differs from those of us who appreciate this film. From your comment, however, it doesn't sound like your going to be pleased with anything whose value is limited to aesthetic brilliance. This is pretty typical, and really quite natural. Most viewers, even intelligent viewers, don't ever reach that third stage, and so they can't fathom the value of anything that doesn't possess some level of substance or content. Formal mastery is never enough for these viewers. Until one day, they stumble across a film that has no genius at all in its content, but that is so formally beautiful that they are deeply moved by it and can't deny the film's brilliance, and that starts the process of growth toward this third and presumably final stage of evolution. If there is a fourth stage, I haven't found it.

I'm well aware of how conceited and pretentious I sound here, professing the existence of levels of cinematic growth that I have achieved but that all you peons will probably never be able to understand. I really don't mean it that way, but it's inevitably going to sound that way, so I can only imagine how arrogant I'll come off with a post like this. So be it.

Put simply, my argument is this: You criticize the film on the grounds of it being nothing but nine seconds of crazy colors and stirred images. And I say, okay, so what? Who said that nine seconds of crazy colors and stirred images can't constitute good cinema? I certainly believe they can. You obviously don't. That's your prerogative. I have to completely disagree with the opinion that the images aren't well constructed here, but putting that aside, who says that a film can't be quality cinema on those merits alone? Of course, conventional wisdom and cinematic dogma are the things that say that. You can submit to those things, but I don't. I won't. Cinematic dogma says that a film has to have a plot and a story and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I couldn't care less about those things. Quality is something I see with my eyes, think in my mind, and feel in my heart. If a film brilliantly engages even just one of those three things, I'm content, and I'll consider it quality cinema. That's how I feel about "Eye Myth". If a film brilliantly engages two of those things, I'll consider it a work of true greatness. If a film brilliantly engages all three, I call it a miracle of the cinema.

Brakhage is not for plot-addicts and those dependent on conventional facets of the medium, like story and characters and superficial entertainment. You should know that about Brakhage going in. If you're one such person that relies on those conventional elements of cinema, steer clear of Brakhage, and Hollis Frampton, and Bergman, and Tarkovsky, and Tati, and Godard, and Fellini, and Pasolini, and Kiarostami, and Tarr, and Bresson. There's more than enough Spielberg and Tarantino and Christopher Nolan to go around. And I don't mean that as condescendingly as it probably sounds. Different tastes, is all. But if you need to have the merits of Brakhage's cinema explained to you (which is not really possible), then you simply haven't gotten to a place where you can recognize the unique gifts he possesses enough to appreciate his films, in which case there's nothing I or anyone else can say to make you see them. It will take time, and more than anything else, an open mind. Only you know if that's something you possess.

reply