I came to a very similar conclusion when thinking about the Poet's dramatic style and, to a certain extent, the nature of theater in general: it's not for me or, at least, not really. The medium itself entails so much abstraction that it really does work best for expressing monumental themes, or absurdity. Writing for a small theater reminds you that all you get is a black stage stripped bare and a few voices and some small props - perhaps the voice of God on a crappy speaker. Or two bums, waiting around for a form of said God. If you're really lucky, you stage the plotting of a Danish prince. But you will never see the last twenty minutes inside Anna's head, unless you make her say everything out loud - and that doesn't really work.
So I think film still makes better sense to me. Ideally, I'd like to represent some of the microscopic reactions that make up our everyday experiences. Meteorology of the soul, or something like that. I guess they call that psychology, or phenomenology. Film as phenomenology? Or just. thinking. small. Writing a single scene at a time, down to every detail. Learning how to express each individual human emotion, building up a kind of grammar. Figuring out the different kinds of camera and stock and shutter speed so that I get the kind of clarity I am looking for.
*
I saw this drawing at the MoMA a few days ago, but it wasn't called 'Mmasturbator' there. It was called 'Thirty Years Old.' I liked that title a lot better.

I've been thinking about building little walls lately, between myself and almost everyone else. And of moving into a bright bare studio with white walls and lots of skylights; or converting my new bedroom into a private little cafe (can't find a really good one in Atl). Though talking to C. today was pretty good.

No comments:
Post a Comment