"Certainly a film must be about whatever appears most often in it"

If Frampton's formula is correct and film is about whatever physical attribute most dominates the work, then Dorsky's work "Love's Refrain" is about paint and Nelson's natural features is about Patterns. But, I'm not sure it's so simple. It's certainly not a bad way to go about thinking about things though.

I don't know about you, but I REALLY like experimental film, but sometimes...well, sometimes it's just too out there, and for me, as a person, as an artist, there is no entrance point into the work. Frampton's formula offers a way in. I find that especially with experimental film, when the work strikes me as unapproachable my mind just wanders. I'm hardly paying any attention to the piece, it's just a backdrop (and sometimes an irritating one) for a mental list of what I need to accomplish on a certain day, a time to reflect- did I turn off the curling iron this morning...etc.... etc.... and by turning away from the work I've gained little. Instead, the act of searching for prevalence provides purpose and encourages observation while discouraging internal distractions. In this way, Frampton's thinking is useful.

But, it is what it is, a formula, and it's not alway applicable. For example, Kevin said that the first piece to him was about the sound he heard most- the projector. If that were my measure, all the pieces would have been about "the-guy-sitting-next-to-me's noisy bag of chips." Simply not true. Besides, I've had conflicting accounts with friends after seeing films. For example, a group of friends and I went out to see Mitchel Gondry's "Science Of Sleep" and when we walked out I commented that the film was a depiction of grief, specifically the main character's loss of a parent. Another friend commented that it was about love, and still another that it was about "sweet animations." We're all right, but when we go to the movies we take ourselves along; we take our experiences, our feelings, and our knowledge with us. For two people to see the exact same film and have the exact same reaction is rare.

To convolute the issue all the more, there is the simple fact that as a species we're narrative driven. We want plot! So if a friend asks me what "Walk Hard: the legend of Dewey Cox" is about and I reply using Frampton's formula and say, John C. Reilly...I'm going to have some more explaining to do. As people, we want more.

So, to recap the ramble. Frampton's formula offers a way of exploring a work, but the formula isn't suited to all films.

James Benning + Math

I have to say that I almost enjoyed our lecture this week. It was strange, I actually have generalized panic disorder, which admittedly, is pretty horrible, but something that often triggers panic attacks for me is math.

I know it sounds weird, but it's true. The last time I tried to take a math class I had a panic attack, and henceforth was actually medicated before attending other math courses. So...I wasn't looking forward to this.

But, I thought it was interesting the way Mr. Benning made the connection between math and art. One of my good friends just became a math teacher, and he was always trying to convince me about how great math was. I never believed him! But, in a way, it's true. Artists are inspired by all sorts of things, and in Mr. Benning's case...it's math. I think that's rare.

I really liked the part where he said that one of his students knitted a love poem into a scarf by converting each letter to a binary expression. I thought that was a really beautiful. I also like the idea that at one point nothing is everything, and everything is nothing. (something about infinity...I don't really understand it) but, from a philosophical stand-point, it sure does make me think.