Subject: Re: gender: Watching with eyes wide shut
From: Matthew Sanders (sanders@monsoonmedia.com)
Date: Thu Oct 21 1999 - 23:49:37 CDT
>I guess what I found most disturbing about this film was the way I felt
>myself somehow implicated in the whole thing. There I was, forced into a
>role somewhere between voyeur and participant. As offensive as it was, I
>can't discredit the careful thought that went into its construction.
>Before we even get to the part that turned my skin clammy and my stomach
>inside out (I would have retired to the bathroom to lean over a toilet
>bowl had I not been so dependent on knowing what would become of the
>victim and her assailants), we see a young woman passed out as the guy
>beside her takes casual advantage of her dazed state. And then there's
>the charge that comes with walking in on a forbidden act, a curiosity to
>see more that reverts to horror when the filmmaker gathers his friends
>and we are finally forced to watch.
I've been thinking about the piece quite a bit since we saw it. As you
said before, it certainly plowed through whatever desensitization I may
have had. I can't think of anything which has affected me physically the
way that it did. Shock was a definite element of the experience.
Awareness of that made me hesitant to put my thoughts into words too
quickly, at least before it seemed things had really sunken in..
As such, some things certainly stand out. While there is certainly
something to be said for differing individual experience, I'd pretty much
stand with those who have questioned just exactly why we were shown this
piece. Perhaps given a particular container for the experience
(particularly if the people who made it were present) would have changed
the result. As it stands, I can't really say that I got much out of it
except horror. Yes, I could have left, but as Peter put it, there is a
desire on the part of the viewer to know, which can be difficult to
override. Even at the points where I could not bring myself to look at
the screen, I wanted to know the end. What the cause of that particular
syndrome is, I couldn't tell you, but it is certainly present.
I found it interesting that this was presented to give us an example of
what the range of possible projects was. This was not a particularly
inspiring case, for me at least. Perhaps I missed the point. If so, I'd
be interested to hear what others got out of it (or what Sandy was
intending). It felt a bit like being bludgeoned with a sledge hammer
under the auspices of demonstrating possible construction methods.
This relates to something else I've been thinking about lately. We've
talked a fair amount about the value of the moment of disruption and the
power of deconstruction. It seems that intrinsic to such acts is a
certain degree of intent, and judgement about the effect of said actions.
While coming nude to class would certainly challenge social convention,
what would be the ultimate result? Such an act doesn't send a specific
message without some degree of clarification. Is this just a prank, or
actually supposed to mean something?
I don't see massive social change based solely on radical action. Maybe
I'm missing some glaring examples. If so, I'd love to talk about them.
It seems more often the case that subversion of existing ideas happens
through relation to them, rather than attacking them in an abrupt way.
However, there does seem a neccessity for radical action/ideas, ect.
Many of the basic concepts of our lives today were pretty radical
concepts at one time. Are the ideas we're discussing more relavant on a
personal basis, or is there actually empowerment for social modification
happening here? I'd be interested in discussing that relationship
further, personally.
Anyway, my thought of the moment..
-Matt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Fri Mar 10 2000 - 13:30:00 CST