Responce 2

1. Sitney argues that Reflections on Black anticipates a lyrical film because the protagonists surroundings aren't presented in a dreamlike state. The camera presents the world almost in a definitive sense, thus giving it someone of a lyrical structure.

2. The camera takes the perspective of the protagonists (that is, first person) and the audience is never removed from this state of mind. It almost goes so far as to suggest that the audience is the protagonist because we are viewing everything through his or her eyes, thus connecting them on another level.

3. Marie Menken was probably the largest influence on Brakhage's move to a lyrical film. Beyond praising his films and unique style, Menken used the camera in a rhythmical, almost predictable sense when applied to the lyrical film. Brakhage later picked up and employed this into many of his films.

4. A soft montage gradually places images together (usually based on pattern, color, or rhythm) allowing the viewer to get a sense of where the image is progressing whereas a hard montage forces images together, usually in a juxtaposing fashion attempting to disorientate the viewer. An example of a soft montage in Anticipation of the Night might be the camera moving its focus from doors to windows to a garden hose, etc. whereas an example of a hard montage from the same film would be the pan across the baby's arm.

5. Brakhage focused on very trivial on apparently meaningless objects. That is, to say, things that are often overlooked everyday by people because of laziness, or simply because they are accustom to seeing so many things. He claims very few people applicate the small details and it is not used in a "spiritual sense". He was often very fascinated with colors, shapes, and patterns and how they play on both the physical eye and the brain.

6. Sitney argues this because many other experimental filmmakers at the time were still stuck on the idea of romantic or tragic life, whereas Brakhage engaged in much more lucid ideas of expressionism. Directly manipulating film and his attention to small everyday or overlooked details (as previously mentioned) allowed him to branch out in a fashion that few filmmakers either dared to explore or never considered. Also, his strong connection between the spiritual and the everyday gave his films a very powerful and liberating sense.

7. The natural cycle of the seasons, man verses nature, a first understanding of conciseness, and sexual imbalance.

8. The Cage employed just about every technique known to man and then even created some to get an extreme sense of disillusion. Multiple camera speeds, edits, and filters were used to disrupt the protagonist (and viewer). These different film techniques went beyond just a visual impact but also, according to Sitney, created metaphors for perception and conscience that changed perspective in experimental films.

9. Both films lack a consistent or, at least, connected narrative and they appear to go around in circles. They also seem to be humorous if you look at it as a almost slapstick like comedy. Finally, several camera tricks were used to create that comedy and move the story forward.

10. Peterson literally took the ideas of his students and shot them on the film. Where most filmmakers would try to connect these ideas in an editing lab, he shot all of the ideas presented (the diver, the rats, the chalk, the ballad) and simply cut them together trying to tell some sort of story. With the music playing over the film, it gives the entire thing a play like feel.

11. I tackle films such as this by simply attempting to enjoy the image and the edits. If I get a sense of plot or message or anything else beyond them, I can apply and enjoy that as well, but with films such as this I simply attempt to enjoy the images and cuts as much as possible. It doesn't always work but it is a good effort. Sitney appears to literally dissect the film by counting images, relating them to time, ratios, etc. This is something very few people do, even for experimental films. The only people who spend that much time with films would be the filmmakers and perhaps film scholars (such as Sitney). Most viewers wouldn't spend that much time with the film (and realistically couldn't until recently in technological history). I don't like that style as it appears to try to scientifically understand art. Yes, there is a certain amount of science and psychology behind art, but you cannot treat it or try to understand it as if it were a definitive science, as he appears to do.