this weekend we went to see the qatsi trilogy at davies symphony hall. basically they screened the three movies: koyannisqatsi, powaqqatsi, and naqoyqatsi in the symphony hall, with live accompaniment by philip glass and the philip glass ensemble. if i’m going to fritter away my life’s earnings by living in an expensive metropolis, i might as well take advantage of the cultural benefits, right? you don’t get the chance to see this in the sticks.
as you may or may not know, “qatsi” is hopi for “life”, and the movies show “life out of balance”, “life in transformation”, and “life as war”. it’s done as a long montage of shots, showing people in their lives around the world, the effects that we have on our environment, and the scale thereof that makes things like freeways look simultaneously like little ants running on paths or even blood cells rushing through tiny arteries.
apparently “qatsi” is also ed for “sleepy”, and this instantly put me out for most of the first movie on friday. i drank a coffee before the second one on saturday, and only slept through the first part, so i consider that progress. at the very least, “sleepy in transformation”, right?
unfortunately, by the third night i had gotten everything down and was able to stay awake for the entirety of the film. i say unfortunately because naqoyqatsi is by far the weakest of the three. in fact, you’d be hard pressed to not admit that it’s actually a bad film. there’s far too much computer-generated imagery, which is both cheaply and poorly done and meaningless. it’s sad when a movie that came out in 2002 evokes comparisons of early cg use in movies. sure, we have fond memories of tron, but that was 1982! nobody waxes poetic about lawnmower man.
it’s sad because the music is still interesting and compelling, but we were forced to watch the performers and try to avert our eyes from the very large screen.
there was also a talk on saturday with philip glass and the director godfrey reggio hosted by robert osserman, special projects director of the mathematical sciences and research institute and professor emeritus of mathematics at stanford university. they talked about a lot of really interesting stuff, things about atonality, unified theories of harmony and rhythm, and the computer/technology as a sacrament. i’d write more about it but i think i forgot it all.
maybe next time i’ll bring a notebook.
Posted at February 20, 2006 10:52 PMprobably the best live event i ever attended was a live performance/screening of koyaanisqatsi at ucla.
that much said, naqoyqatsi is my favorite film of the trilogy - i don’t think it’s the best, but it’s definitely the one to which i connect the most thematically… i never questioned the “quality” of the cgi - i always assumed that the way it was was the way it was by intention rather than deficiency, but i guess that is more likely to happen when you bond to a narrative.
and you’re absolutely right - NO ONE waxes poetic about “lawnmower man.”
Posted by: Javier Grillo-Marxuach at February 21, 2006 7:47 AMto me, endless animated sequences of dollars , yen, pounds and euros make far less an impact than, say, the buzzing hive of people in the stock trading floor from koyannisqatsi. i think it’s the fact that i’m watching just a bunch of computer generated imagery that really makes it meaningless to me. it ends up being more some sad little animation effects reel as opposed to watching images of people in their environments in REAL LIFE. watching hundreds of people carry sacks of dirt up a hill is strangely fascinating: the obvious ant-like comparisons of brutal futility arise, making you wonder if the ants have greater purpose that we just don’t understand, or whether we really have less importance, and viewed by others who can’t comprehend *our* existences, it’s also just meaningless as ants blinding doing what they do just out of instinct.
during the talk reggio did talk about how naqoyqatsi was definitely the most “directed” film, in that it’s got more of an intended point that it’s trying to get across, instead of just letting people come to their own judgements from the images in the first two movies. i’m certainly fine with this, but just the images chosen i find severely lacking.
watching computer generated graphics bounce around is less meaningful, ultimately. i’d rather play katamari damacy or something.
Posted by: e at February 21, 2006 9:49 PMi don’t think you’re wrong - and i completely understand your point about reality v. unreality. plus - as with all cinema, you either like the images or you don’t.
i do wonder whether “naqoyqatsi” is going to hold up to future viewings for me - if only because of what your issue is with it, will the images remain relevant (for me, not for you, since they didn’t do it for you in the first place)?
also, when i say that naqoyqatsi is my “favorite” we are talking about a very high baseline for all three movies.
my impression is that taken as a whole, the trilogy is about society’s inescapable slide into synthetic inhumanity - watching all three of the films together, i felt that “naqoyqatsi” conveyed a tragic emptiness beyond redemption, and delivered a climactic punch that is supported by the first two films.
i found the end of “powaqqatsi” to be enormously depressing because of the final choice of a shot on a pool of still, dead water - to me, “naqoyqatsi” is the microscope’s eye view into that emptiness.
in a strange way, i found “naqoyqatsi” it to be more representative of the world in which i function than the other two.
Posted by: Javier Grillo-Marxuach at February 21, 2006 10:45 PMComments are now closed for this entry. Thank you for playing.