Podcast
Features
Comments| [powerpress url="/shows/2006/200601_twenty_one/files/twenty_one_final_low.mp4" image="/shows/2006/200601_twenty_one/images/screen_still_c_375.jpg"] Click Image To Play Video |
 |
Download “Twenty One” – 6:40
Quicktime large (25.2 MB) | Quicktime small (9.2 MB) |
 Katie Thomas |
About “Twenty One”
By the end of last semester I had just turned twenty-one and was looking forward to my junior year at Hampshire College. But I became restless and decided to leave school for a while. I had no real sense of what I might do with this time. I just needed time off to explore.
One thing I also needed was a job. So I started working with Nubar Alexanian who is a close family friend. The actual idea to film myself came from conversations between us as I shared my confusion over what else to do with my time. Nubar suggested that I explore these questions on camera. So he gave me a video camera and a bunch of equipment and told me to make a movie.
I began filming myself without any clear sense of what I was doing. I had no previous experience with the technical aspects, evident when Nubar suggested I use a tripod and I asked, what’s that? I also didn’t know what the movie would be about. I had no script, no theme, no narrative, only a sense of the approach, which was sort of a film diary exploring my thoughts and feelings on camera. And though I talked about my life, my reaction to the process itself became more pressing. Twenty One is what emerged.
If I had really thought about people watching this movie while shooting myself, I wouldn’t have interacted with the camera the way I did. I told myself that the process was for myself even though I had committed to making a viewable piece. In the back of my mind I knew it wouldn’t be worth it unless I was willing to risk putting it out, to be viewed by other people.
Tech Info
 |
I used a JVC HD10 camera with a wide angle lens (so I could stay close to the microphone as much as possible). The mic was a Sony ECM-MS908C and we recorded to Sony Mini DV Digital HD tapes.
Nubar’s instructions were simple: put the camera on the tripod, use all automatic settings on the camera, stay close to the mic when possible, the zoom button is here, and this is how you load and unload tapes from the camera.
We edited on a G5 in Final Cut Pro HD after digitizing the footage in iMovie HD and rendering it in Final Cut.
 |
Katie is enrolled as a student at Hampshire College in Amherst, MA. She is studying psychology in preparation for graduate work in the field. She is also interested in film and video, which she hopes to pursue in further work. She is still taking time off from school and plans to live in California during the next semester.
About Nubar Alexanian
Nubar has been a documentary photographer for more than 30 years. He’s traveled all over the world producing pictures essays for magazines like The New York Times, Life, Geo, Fortune and many others. Four books of his work have been published: Stones In The Road: Photographs of Peru (1992), Where Music Comes From (1996), Gloucester Photographs (2001) and Jazz with Wynton Marsalis(2002). His first piece for radio, Perfect Hearing, aired on Transom in October 2003, on This American Life in Feb 2004 and was an award recipient at The Third Coast Audio Festival in 2004.
As a photographer, he is currently shooting portraits of all the essayists for This I Believe, which airs weekly on National Public Radio (www.npr.org/thisibelieve) and is working on his fifth book with filmmaker Errol Morris.
As a filmmaker, he opened Walker Creek Films where he is producing & directing a film about music in the Middle East. He is also finishing a series of short films on Flamenco music and dance in Jerez, Spain.
Additional support for this work provided by
Transom offers tools and advice to help people tell their stories, but does not presume to suggest what those stories might be about.
This new piece by Katie and Nubar is an audio-visual self-interview around the question: "What would you do if somebody told you to make a movie about your life?" It ponders this from the vantage point of being twenty-one years old, the age that, by law in this country, we are loosed upon the world and may be expected to answer for ourselves. What will we say?
This piece grapples in a really interesting way with the relationship between content and medium. Although the narrator is struggling for some version of authenticity, her quest is limited or restricted by the familiar forms of the film medium itself. Although the narrator is searching for some form of "authentic" identity, the images we are left with are highly constructed and in many ways fairly typical media visions of a 21 year old woman. Oddly enough, although she is trying to place herself under her own scrutiny, and even though she has control of the camera, it seems like (to use some film theory lingo) she places herself under the fairly traditional "male gaze." Although she’s trying to solve and resolve questions of identity she can’t seem to get beyond the way she is perceived visually by the dominant culture. In the end the film provides a savvy insight into the ways in which our identities (particular female identities) are formed by media images. Katie – were those some of your thoughts when you were constructing the film?
Interesting questions. They didn’t occur to me, maybe because the piece didn’t seem necessarily grounded in femaleness to me. Would it be different if it was a guy? Is it a question of attractiveness? To me it was more generally about identity, self, the first-person as it relates to a creative statement.
What I got from the piece was that state–something we find a lot at Transom–of wanting to make something, but not knowing what to make, a preamble to creative process, or even a creative life. The piece is frustrating to watch because it never begins, but then you realize it is a kind of song about wanting to begin. The rhythms and movement take over, the repetition, the wish.
I can see how this piece might drive some people crazy. But that kind of indecisiveness can drive you crazy too, and seen from that angle, this piece was an elegant little anthem to it.
I wonder if it might be better if it were shorter. The longer it goes, the more you want it to be ABOUT something and impatience might overwhelm appreciation of style.
[Just a note, like many pieces at Transom, this is a work in progress, a first draft--and I know the producers are interested in responses they can consider in trying to make it better.]
Katie — Forgive me an anecdote, but your piece went straight into my memory and plucked it out.
When I was 19 or 20 I had to present an art history seminar on 19th century neoclassicism. I stayed up night after night, slogging through books and looking at slides, then staggered into class with a paper explaining how you couldn’t really say anything about neoclassicism — you could choose to see it as form negating itself for the sake of content, or as content negating itself for the sake of form, and there was really no way to reconcile those things, no way to come to terms with them, no way to say that one was any more valid than the other, nothing to conclude. The professor and the other students just stared at me. Their expressions said: "And?" They had no sympathy for my failure to come up with a thesis, to take sides, to carry an idea forward. I was humiliated, but I think I learned something about stories. My next paper was about Gauguin, and it wrestled with questions of motivation and striving, of dishonesty and hypocrisy and self-delusion and the way those all gave life to the art. I actually don’t remember WHAT the paper was about, but it started somewhere and built toward something, the way brushstrokes in time make a picture. And the folks ate it up.
Twenty-One asks a great question — "What would I say?" But after about 3 minutes I found myself asking: "And?" I wanted you to come up with a thesis, take sides, to carry it forward. Or to jump, move, dance, shout, whatever. I admired your doggedly going before the camera, time after time, staring at it, hoping for an epiphany. I liked your delivery, your choice of words. I appreciated your honesty, your unwillingness to say anything on tape that you didn’t believe in. I thought the music and editing were terrific. But although it was just 6 minutes long, I was impatient. You asked a question, and re-asked it, and I felt cheated that you didn’t take the next step. Because I’m curious what it would be.
this movie made me feel one with katie. i know that may sound silly but its true. i’m 18 and don’t know where i’m going or what i’m doing and why i’m not THERE yet. i look through my journals and in the margins hidden behind the endless doodles are the words "what am i trying to say"- I think that everyone in life has this question in their mind. for some it is more evident in their minds, plaguing their daily life and constantly reminding them of their purpose. i want to thank you, katie, for vocalizing what many people are thinking. it feels good to finally have it said out loud.
-allegraMbianchini
To Sarah:
When making the film I was aware of the visual beauty and perhaps sexual overtones present in the images. I felt that I constructed the film through my own gaze even if that gaze is a part of the dominant culture. I do experience a tension between wanting to be desired for my "femaleness", as a female object, yet also not wanting to be limited by my gender, having a particular hope that my thoughts be seen as human rather than gender specific. I think the film contains these elements, But I didn’t construct the film with these points in mind. I simply recorded myself in my present experience without censoring it too much. I feel I was authentic to my self-experience. I am curious to know how the film affected you in terms of how you feel about your gender.
To Jay:
There was a point that we thought about making the film about half the length it is yet decided against that because we felt a lot was lost. The form reflects the frustration I experienced in making the film and I am intrigued by the discussion it raises about what a film has to be in terms of its structure and also the way it makes the viewer feel. I think it’s definitely long enough to make one feel a little impatient (which I like) but does it overwhelm the appreciation of style? That might be different for different viewers, how about you?
To Jon:
I felt frustrated too when I was making the piece, like I just wanted to have a break through, or have an epiphany, but it didn’t happen like that. I couldn’t get beyond these questions and my reaction to the process itself, so I couldn’t reveal anything else in this film, and that is what the film is about. This is my first film and I’m not sure where I might go should I decide to make another one but I hope it would be something quite different.
To Allegra:
I appreciated your response Allegra. I do hope the film inspires others to listen to and express honestly what’s on their minds however contradictory, incorrect, or scary that might seem. Perhaps young people have the advantage of having developed less set ways of thinking and feeling, less censorship within our own minds. I think we all have the potential to speak from our hearts in a kind of unfiltered and honest way. It’s exciting to me and I’m glad the film resonated with you.
Hi Katie!
I really enjoyed watching this piece, as I’m working right now on my own personal documentary film and grappling with all of the questions and challenges that arise with these types of projects.
With any kind of art, especially a medium that’s new to me, I always like to study the work of my heroes and then basically copy their shit. Eventually, I find my own voice and style, but I think it’s instructive to try to mimic someone, it helps me learn tons about process. For documentary film, my hero is Ross McElwee. You may already be familiar with his work, but if not you might want to go peep that. Sherman’s March is his most well-known, but my favorites are Time Indefinite and his latest, Bright Leaves.
And yes, he pays me to post shit like this.
Keep it up Katie!
Peace — Davy
21 Balloons Prod.
When I watched Twenty-One my first thought was that Katie has framed two of the eternal philosophical questions in the very concrete context of the process of making the film.
The Buddhist says our true home is in the here and in the now; Katie says, “This whole moment in time (when I am recording myself) is… it matters.”
The existentialist says that each act is to be judged by its authenticity – whether or not it accords with external measures of ethics or aesthetics or the way anyone else makes a film is irrelevant– it is authentic if, and only if, the act is in accord with the “ownness” of the actor. Katie asks, “How can I guarantee that what I am doing is real, is authentic, that I’m not just doing this for approval?”
Is six minutes really a long time for a paean to these questions?
Each of these questions has an opposite question as its twin. As Nils Bohr said, a great truth is a truth whose opposite is also a great truth. The here and now, this moment, matters in its own right, without regard to past or future. The opposite truth is that it is connected by a chain of causality to the past and to the future, it is brought about by the past, it makes the future.
When we ask, ‘how do I know what is authentic?’ we are asking ‘what is unique to me – what is the one-of-a-kind spark or purpose or love or vision that can be manifested only by me?’ ‘Who am I, as distinct from anyone else?’ The twin question is, ‘who do I belong to?’ What is the nature of the drop? What is the nature of the sea? In the examined life we investigate drop and sea and drop and sea forever, but to me this film is about the spectacular moment in which the drop emerges from the sea. The drop comes from the sea and belongs to the sea and will return to the sea, but at age Twenty-One, the project is the drop.
Some of the comments suggest the film doesn’t get started or doesn’t go anywhere. It does for me. I see a story in it. It may be of my own invention, but whether or not Katie intended it, it is there for me. In the beginning, the list of nouns seems random, like naming the things you see looking out the window of a moving train, the things that flash by. Then Katie tells us what she’s doing, what she’s struggling with. The film ends with another list, “gifts, Chris, family, love …” In this choice of words I hear Katie saying I do know a part of the answer, I can name some things that I hold in the one-of-a-kind Katie way of holding. And then she adds the last word, “film.” In that word I hear her saying I do know a part of the answer, and I know that I have made my own authentic one-of-a-kind Katie film.
hello katie and nubar.
Your film, 21, is quite lovely to watch, but i too felt a bit cheated by the lack of any actual concrete content, beyond the feeling that you are full of questions. Aren’t we all? 21 seems like a beautiful confection but I feel sure there is more to it. The key must be hidden in the individual elements, the glass heart seems like it must be important, maybe the answer is in those strings of words, they must in represent something quintessentially "Katie". Can you shed some light on these elements, why you used them, what is there significance?
also you pose many questions in this movie: Can you answer any of them now, now that this film about you at 21 is out there in the world, now that you have some feedback; has seeing it through other people’s eyes helped.
Dear Katie and Nubar,
Congratulations. I found Twenty-One to be fresh and genuinely original.
The range of comments reminds me of those perception tests where some people see an old woman, some see a young one, and some people can, with a little effort, see both. I see the
film about the emerging individual that Vicki Lindsay wrote about so beautifully. I can’t see conventional media images of a 21-year-old woman, or the "male gaze", no matter how hard I try. It is the nature of an abstract work that the meaning is in the eye of the beholder. Because Twenty One is spare and abstract we are free to fill in the spaces. Perhaps Twenty One is like a Rorschach test, our response telling us as much about ourselves as about the filmmaker’s intention.
Like Vicki Lindsay,I also saw a movement from "I don’t know what I’m doing making this film" to "This is a film about the interesting and intriguing experience of uncertainty, of chrysalis, of as yet undefined potential, of being 21, of making a film (or a life) without a recipe.
.
Sorry to say, there’s no hidden key in the glass heart or the string of words. If I told you how/why Katie recorded them intially, it would not explain the way they are currently used in the film (nor did they contribute to any kind of narrative thread in and of themselves).
I understand this is frustrating: the lack of a narrative thread. But let me say this. Katie took a semester off from school and worked as my assistant. I’ve known her since she was a kid. But it was in these last six months when I really discovered who she is and when we became close friends. We would have almost daily discusssions about her life, what she wanted to do/say/become. As she describes in her intro, I gave her a camera in the hope that she would be able to record and tranlate her process in video.
This film accurately portrays this process. The glass heart and words are devices we used to describe/translate her experience. If the audience doesn’t get it, then we may have a problem.
As many of you know, I am first and foremost a still photographer, and I approached this film from that sensibility: metaphor before narrative thread. Since radio and film have more inherent narrative demands than still photographs, I do understand the problems this can create.
As a photographer, I have never concerned myself with how/whether an audience would react to my photographs. But it’s different in film, which is why we are screening this short film here on Transom. And all these responses have been very helpful.
Finally, it seems that people Katie’s age get the film more than others, and that even for those who have a problem with the lack of narrative structure, the film is engaging. Is this a reasonable assumption to make…that even without a narrative thread, the film is engaging?
Jay described the piece nicely, as a “preamble to the creative process,” a song about wanting to begin. The film captures the process one goes through to get to a story worth telling. Is it enough to end the film before I get to my story? This question seems to be at the heart of some people’s response to the film. It is also a question I ask in the film, do you think a movie has to have a story in order to be interesting? People seem to be bothered by the lack of story in this piece, in terms of its structure and content. But people have also said that they are compelled by the piece. From the feedback I have gotten, I’m still not sure what to make of this question, what to conclude about whether a movie has to have a story in order to work.
I like Vicki’s description of the piece as a drop which “comes from the sea and belongs to the sea and will return to the sea but at the age of Twenty-One the project is the drop.” It is a piece of life, a piece of time, capturing an extraction of my experience. My hope is that people can relate to this experience in some way, to engage with the questions that I’ve asked myself and ask these questions themselves. Allegra’s response was meaningful to me because she was able to engage with the film by reflecting on her own experience. I think the film asks viewers to be active observers, to draw from one’s own experience in order to take something away from it. It won’t affect everyone in this way but I’m happy for those it does.
Thanks Katie, for putting yourself in front of that camera. I found the film engaging, to answer Nubar’s question, without a narrative, though were it even a minute longer, I think I’d grumble. The first time I watched, I was a little restless for something to chew on. The visuals were lovely, the flow, the interplay of voice over and voice on camera, but the living-in-the-real-world (the non-European world) part of me felt a little shruggish. a little eh. Is that all there is? Film feeds the brain the expectation motion, of change. Second time, a week later, I told my brain to relax; I let the music feed the need for motion. Had more fun that way, the music a sometimes humorous counterpoint following “I just don’t see how I’m going to get from a to b.” (how I feel most of the time). As a too-literal person, I like ta-da’s, the sound of a book closing. Twenty-One frustrates that in me, but I appreciate being reminded of what it feels like to ask big questions about art and life and creativity and to stand still waiting to hear the wind’s response.
Katie: How much tape did you have? Over how long did you shoot? How did the editing process work? The choice of music, I oh so strongly suspect, was a Nubar suggestion. Did you play around with any other choices? If you were going to frame one still from this to represent you at twenty-one, what would it be?
Aside from being beautifully shot and edited, my initial reaction to twenty-one brought up my personal experience with creative process–experimenting with music and songwriting for some time. I readily identified with Katie’s sense of disorientation and frustration when starting a new project; much of which comes from making ourselves (as artists) vulnerable to the scrutiny of others.
What we most often see when experiencing any kind of artwork is the finished product. What many don’t see is the painstaking emotional process that comes first, that essentially allows work to begin. What became most compelling to me after viewing the piece again was that through the lack of narrative structure, Katie was able to provoke frustration and confusion in her viewers. In this sense artist and viewer alike share a hunger for more.
Often creativity gives birth to a product, but many times it doesn’t; the energy can be all for naught. To me anyway, twenty-one was an accurate representation of that experience.
To Sydney
I shot about five hours of tape over the course of a month and a half. Nubar and I began editing before I had finished. Nubar put some of his ideas together and showed me. From there on in we edited the piece together, working though a couple different ideas about what the film might be about. Nubar suggested we try this piece of music and it quickly became a major character in the film. We both thought it was a perfect fit so we didn’t try any other music.
There’s not one still frame that comes to mind right now which I find represents me at twenty-one more than any other. Each time I watch the film different images speak to about my experience at twenty-one.
Katie and Newbar, Congratulations on this video, great work. It was thought-provoking, and to me, a window on the indecision felt at twenty-one beginning of the journey through adulthood Thinking about a Twenty-Two?
Glad you liked the film Renata. I’m not thinking about another film yet, but I havn’t ruled out the possibility.
Hi Katie,
I thought your piece was intriguing, graceful, funny, provocative, curious, ephemeral and beautiful. I loved the way the music carried us along, and the rhythm of the editing, and your questions, your humor, and your refusal to make it more than what it was.
I teach playwriting and I wondered what my students would think (I’ll tell them to check it out when I get back to school later this week). I wondered while I watched it whether it was going to “go somewhere,” and I found myself thinking about narrative. It is so interesting to me that we do often want to know, what is this about, what is happening, who is this person, where is she going to take us, what is the story she is going to tell?
I didn’t think there needed to be more of a story. It seems to be quite purely what it is, a question about form and content and meaning and how to begin and how to be in the moment and how to be authentic, how to be oneself, what the self is, what a creative act is. I didn’t think it made sense to work further on it—unless you have a strong impulse to do so.
I do say to my students, Throw your hat into the ring; what do you want to say; what do you want to assert? And I am always intrigued by the challenge of narrative. How much of a thread is needed for a play to be compelling? With all of my plays I come up against that. I do think that for any rule the opposite can apply. But I do teach that we are watching for some change to occur, that a piece has to be about something (however unstated that thing is), that you need to write something that feels uniquely yours. Well, many things. Many things that you have done here, really, though to make something longer you’d probably have to go to a new place to sustain it.
Thank you!!
Kathleen
I enjoyed your film. I immediately saw it as a self-portrait and as a study. It was driven by the question of how do I make a film about my life? And the questions that follow from that. I could relate to those questions, both now and from when I was in college. I loved the line or question about authenticity. Very funny. Because it is about the paradox of creating. "How can I be unselfconsious?" Can I plan on being spontaneous?
I think it’s very real.
Keith
for your thoughtful posting on 21, we would like to send you a transom.org t-shirt. Can you email your mailing address to info@transom.org and we will get one to you asap.
thanks again.
Hello, my name is Sean Behrens and I recently say Katie’s "Twenty One". For me it is strictly free expression that provokes artistic responses. Personally, I did not like it. I got that Katie didn’t know what type of movie she wanted to make when she began making her video. "Twenty One" is an ultimate form of expression that only a few can appreciate, namely people that know Katie personally, or people that are artistically frustrated (because it seemed to me that Katie didn’t know what it took to make a video and she probably thought that it’s easy for eccentric people to create art, but in the video I saw the frustration). Or maybe it’s me, I like my katharsis, movies, music, and art in some form of a focus and this video did not have any, if that’s what Katie was going for then she accomplished her goals. So I read her biography and story of the film after I watched it and to no surprise she had the help of a veteran documentary filmmaker, Nubar. I could see Nubar jumping at the chance of editing a 21 eccentric girl’s personality translated to video. And I feel that he did a great job of trying to create a meaning out of the prime oriel ooze that Katie created artistically. I never liked Jazz, but the selection of the music was cool. Love Sean Behrens.
I think we’ve all felt the way Katie has at some point or another, whether or not we work on or in some sort of arts or in anything else. It easy to see her frustration and contemplations were genuine, and I could relate to that completely. She’s right; is it realistic to go into filming your life and expect it to be as utterly exciting as you may want it to be? No, we’re all human, and it’s just human nature that we all don’t have lives like those do in the movies. For that reason, I enjoyed this piece, because it’s one of the most honest things I’ve seen. It did make me wonder what else could have possibly going through Katie’s head; she surely wasn’t thinking or saying just this when she was recording; but all in all, it touched me…using stylized shots (whether these were intentional or not, they were beautiful) and fantastic music, which complimented the film beautifully.
Thanks!
Tara McGrath
As a writer (or at least a wannabe writer), in every creative endeavor I undertake, I try first to ascertain what it is I am trying to accomplish. What am I doing? What is the purpose of this drivel spewing from my brain? It doesn’t always have to be as cut and dry as "the moral of the story", but there is a need, an inherent desire for reason. Sometimes, it can be as simple as "I just want the person reading this to laugh". Other times, it can be as deep as trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe. Either way, there is purpose.
I view/read from a similar standpoint. As I watched this film, I kept asking myself "What is the point that the filmmaker is trying to make?" After viewing the film, and reading the brief backstory about it, I’m not convinced that there is one… at least not one for anyone other than the filmmaker herself.
This does not render the film unimportant. There is value in what has been accomplished. Certainly, anyone who has ever set out to create something in a similar fashion has had the same struggles and same thoughts race through their own minds as those depicted here. The short story/screenplay/poem/song/letter/novel/play that I’ve written a thousand times and yet will never write revolves solely around the period of self-discovery that comes from the burden of having to create something out of nothing (without any of that initial soul or inspiration behind it that makes a person want to rip off their own hands for being too slow to keep up). That is what I find to be captured here. It is a creative mind stuck in the abyss of "what am I doing?"
The only issue I then have with the film is in the stylization elements of the way it was filmed and edited. What is the purpose of style as it is applied here? Would it be more or less intriguing for this to have been non-edited, non-stylized, and simply a steady stream of consciousness? At what point do the stylized elements detract from the piece by trying to be self-important in an artistic sense and abandon the heart of the person? I felt that the "style" conflicted with the heart of the piece.
I was asked to watch this piece by a teacher of mine and I was more than willing to do this. Now let me say right up front that I am not really one who’s really into new experimental things. I really did like the way in which the video was shot and I liked the question posed at the beginning about how if someone asked you to make a film of your life what would it be and then another one half way through about how would she know if what she was doing was interesting. All this was through provoking… just not for the five or six minutes that it went on. Maybe I just don’t get it and that’s fine.
I do feel that in order to really grab my attention things do need a plot other wise I feel like I am reading someone’s journal which can be a random display of thoughts. What I didnt like was that the question about what movie you would make if you had to was posed but never adiquetly explored. Granted if her life consisted of sitting around pondering the quandry’s of life then the goal was accomplished but some how i doubt that. Personally i would like to have seen more of an attempt to really capture her life on her part even if it wasnt perfect at least i would have felt i got to know the person and their life. I am not looking for anything action packed i just feel that the question posed at the begining of the film deservs to be explored a little more then what it was. I dont feel like i know this person at the end of the short other then that they are a person who is so consumed by self doubt and over thinking things that the confine themselves to isolation and worry.
GPB
In terms of films, and all stories in general, I tend to like things that are linear and when plot plays a big role in the outcome. Because of this experimental film doesn’t usually grab my interest, nor do I usually understand what’s going on. I understood the question she posed at the beginning and thought it would be interesting to see captured on film, but I didn’t understand what the creator wanted to convey, what message she wanted to send.
Filming wise I thought it was stylized very well. The close ups were perfect in showing her emotions, as well as the music adding to those emotions. However, I think that if she really wanted to capture her life as it really occurs, it might have been a good stylistic choice to possibly not edit the shots at all and show what streams out from her. This I personally would have found more interesting, and I think it would have really captured her life.
Thanks!
Amanda Santo
I thought it was fascinating how Katie showed the difficulties and complexities that exist when trying to "show" reality in film. Her thoughts regarding truth and art raise important questions… how can we “truly” capture ourselves on film, and what defines anything as “interesting”? While watching her film, I kept wondering why she kept the camera on herself, and why she kept questioning things instead of maybe telling stories or leaving that one rather dark setting. However, it made sense because of the fact that day to day life is monotonous in general, and that not every day is adventurous or overly fun. Most days are just like any other. In the film, she continuously uses close-ups, camera angles, and lighting to show how hard it is to show reality and truth in one’s self, in a way that will entertain or interest others. It will always be a difficult task, finding “reality“, but it is great to see that artists like Katie are willing to seek truth through art.
Thanks!!
- Monique E.
The borderline of naturalism and existentialism is, at least I feel, erased the moment a film becomes a self-reflexive documentary about the angst of not knowing how to impliment a narrative into a process.
Once music was placed, 21 became crafted and no longer raw. There are too many fades and cuts made with too much precision to be classified as rambling. Even now as I watch it a 3rd time I’m recognizing all the carefully planned cuts you’re using.
Katie, I am always thankful when someone churns out something that attempts to be raw and self-reflexive. With 21, though, I felt drowned in both your eyes and the pretentions of "What would you do?" What would I do? Obviously leave my room once in a while and avoid confining myself as a hermit (which is not to say I actually leave my room regularly.)
There was much representation, of smaller objects becoming statements of the whole: the candy heart being the beginning of something too rhetorical to answer in 6 minutes, the close-ups ultimately becoming what is known as Katie or narrator, the ring becoming all we know of as the narrator’s hand, etc. Their brief appearances helped pull the film together (despite your best efforts to throw us off and think that there is no purpose to the film.)
The strong emergence of reality television has lead to an interesting dynamic in the entertainment world. A greater social awareness of the documentary has occurred, and a general interest in how one another act and react within situations has become one of our most basic forms of amusement.
There are several ways in which Twenty One could be viewed and discussed. One may say that to make a film about one’s own process is self-indulgent. It could be viewed in the same vane as Charlie Kaufman’s Adaptation, a film that he wrote about the process of adapting a book in place of actually adapting it. Twenty One could be seen as a look into the mind of an up-and-coming filmmaker. It could also be looked at as a cop-out.
It was interesting to me to read Katie’s comments regarding this film, and to learn that she was initially unaware that it would be available for others to view. She says in her comments that had she been aware that it would someday be viewed, she would have made certain decisions differently, and that to her it was a personal exploration rather than a piece of art in which she was attempting to express frustrations. To me, this notion is very important in understanding the piece.
My first impression of this film was that it had been an intentional manifestation of a filmmaker’s angst about making a film about herself. The camerawork and overall look of the film are such that lend to the notion that each shot, each angle, each word had been a clear and concise decision on the part of the filmmaker. To this vane, I was initially unimpressed with the film, for it felt like a crying out about the uninteresting nature about one’s own art. It was my immediate sentiment that if this had been a piece commenting on the monotony of many films, or perhaps the sort of lameness of a personal-statement-esque film, I was not agreeable to the film’s thesis, for who is one to say an art form isn’t worthwhile when one is him/herself immersed in that art form?
And yet, once I read Katie’s comments on the film itself, I became somewhat intrigued. If this piece is a byproduct of Katie’s self-exploration – a capturing of her process that she was [with good intentions] tricked into creating, it is somewhat interesting. If it is truly a candid portrait of Katie’s true process, which is now my impression, it is an interesting encapsulation thereof. The film expresses the frustrations of many artists, and manifests in her questions of “am I interesting?” a struggle that we will all have from time to time.
This, in my mind, brought up questions of our society as a whole. Why was it that when I thought this was a conscious decision on the part of the artist, I was turned off – and yet when I thought it was a glimpse at reality, I was intrigued? This reaction may be what is driving our nation more and more towards reality-based entertainment. We are in an age when communication is at its height, and we are able to connect with people at an ease that has never been possible before. It is human nature to relate to one another. Many will argue that even through its enhanced modes of communication, technology has given the world a certain disconnectedness – for with internet and telephone communication, true human connection is often lost.
Reality-based entertainment gives us the ability to readily become attached to people and places that we ourselves relate to. Perhaps as a nation we are increasingly craving the self-validation that we get from seeing that there is someone else out there, someone real, who expresses the same fears and emotions that we ourselves do? We are a people who desire information, validation, and connections. It is possible that as a nation, we are moving farther away from invented lives and closer to those that are real, and are being exposed for us to peer in on, judge, and relate to.
As a piece of captured reality, Twenty One is an interesting exploration of the artist’s process and frustrations. It is a glimpse at a world to which many of us can relate, and I believe that the ability to relate to a subject is a huge source of comfort to us as people. It is in connections to people whom we can see and relate to that we seek our own validation in. Is it not true that when most of us watched this film, we were happy to know that someone else out there worries that maybe she isn’t interesting enough, too?
Thanks for everyone’s responses to the film. Some of your points are things I wasn’t necessarily thinking of when creating the piece, so it’s been interesting to speculate on how it could have been done differently.
A point about the style and editing:
A couple of you, John in particular, have brought up a point about the rawness of the piece and whether it would have been better if the piece were less edited or stylized. There are some reasons why I think the style of the piece works. For one, I think the editing and the music provide a sense of cohesion; I’m not sure how that would be created in a more raw form. There is also the issue of length, and whether a more raw version would mean a longer piece. Many have pointed out that six minutes is quite long enough.
On another note, I think the contradiction between the raw exposition and the meticulously edited nature of the piece is an interesting representation of the way we contrive our identities. I think some people feel I was trying to be “real” and ended up being overly contrived. But, as soon as anyone gets in front of a camera, their actions become contrived; the piece is meant to capture a part of myself that was born from the interaction between myself, the camera, and the process. In other words, being contrived is a reality of both filming one’s self and life. The stylization of the piece plays into the inevitability of a construed self.
I’ll be thinking about your responses, and would be fascinated to hear more……
The two best pieces of storytelling wisdom I’ve heard are:
A: Write what you know.
B: Make the book/play/movie that you would want to read/see/watch.
Katie has accomplished point A nicely, no question about that. As for point B, I have no idea what her tastes are so I cannot speak for that one.
As for the film itself, who is the audience? If it’s just something for Katie to do for herself, then I can’t offer any advice there beyond what I’ve already said. However, if she is trying to reach a broader audience, I’m not sure she knows who the audience is. Art is about expression, but to reach an audience, it needs to elicit an emotional response to draw the audience in so they watch it intently. There are ways to do that without losing the self-expression aspect of art, something I don’t think Katie was successfull with.
Going back to point B, if I had made this exact same film and Katie watched it, what would she say to me? Would she enjoy it or hate it? What would she do differently? I hope my insights were helpful.
Another interesting element here: this is a piece about what it is to be 21 and wondering what to say as an artist, made by the wondering 21-year-old in collaboration with a 50-something-year-old artist of many years experience.
Can you two talk about how this worked? Who is saying what? What is memory of being 21 and what comes from being 21 now? How does the music fit? How was the camera work refined over time? Where did the editing choices and rhythms come from? The beginning, the end? Katie, how is this video similar or different to what you might have made alone in your room with no one to help or talk to?
In short, what is at the heart of this collaboration?
On the Collaboration:
There were two, almost entirely separate components to the creation of the film. One component was the filming, which happened alone in my room while the other was the editing which happened at the office and which Nubar was the main director. The most intriguing part for me was being in front of the camera, capturing the live, raw moments that would later make up the content of the film. I feel that this part was my greatest contribution to the piece, whereas Nubar was able to pull out the artistically interesting parts. That’s not to say there was no overlap; Nubar made some suggestions about what to record, and I certainly had some input as to what material should be incorporated. But for me, the relationship I developed with the camera felt like my own whereas the editing felt like Nubar’s. It wasn’t until later on in the editing process, that I became more confident in making suggestions, but still most of my suggestions had to do with the visual and rhythmic aspects of this piece rather than the overall content of the piece.
Its hard to say what is me and what is Nubar, because its hard to say whether it is the filming or the editing that makes the piece most essentially what it is. I do think Twenty One as we know it was made in the editing room, but I also think there is something essentially mine in the material. The bottom line is that I wouldn’t have done anything if it weren’t for Nubar’s incredible willingness, support and guidance. As I see it, the piece was born out of our relationship and is therefore both of ours.
A note on the filming:
I was pleased to read Lauren’s post about her impressions of the piece after knowing my intentions because I think it makes a difference. I want viewers to know that I didn’t really have any idea about what I was going to do in front of the camera. I basically relinquished myself to whatever came out in the moment. My approach was to get comfortable in front of the camera and to be as honest as possible. I started by doing things in front of the camera, sometimes just looking silently until I was ready to say something. Eventually I began having conversations with the camera mostly about what it was like to be filming myself and about the insecurities that came up for me, because that was what was on my mind. Max brought up the question of whether the film is something I would find interesting myself. I think it is because I am intrigued when people speak honestly about whatever is on their mind, insecurities and all. If someone gave you a camera right here and now and told you to turn it on yourself, what would you do? To hear someone speak honestly about what they experience in that situation is definitely interesting to me. I think knowing my approach makes a difference in terms of how you view the content of the film.
Hum, great focus for a piece, the question. There’s something I ran across in an Anthony Robbins tape years ago about questions being the most significant portion of insight or something like that. And, being a person who loves to ask and be asked anything…this story had my attention. Also, NPR happens to be a place for very curious questioning people.
I found your film both refreshing and funny. I wasn’t sure if you were trying to be funny at all but by the end I was really smiling and laughing a lot. I think it was that realization that there wasn’t going to be many answers, let alone a story, in your piece, and that was just fine with you. I still laugh as I write this.
As an artist who puts way too much energy into preparation, preconception, worry and analysis…I can relate to your position. I also think that it’s, even though you don’t answer it, a really good set of questions. What’s important seems to be that I/we are not alone in this sometimes troubling process of creation…and the distance between idea, product and feedback.
I also have EXACTLY the same red glass heart, two of them actually, on my livingroom mantle, where I keep special things I love. I love it for the smooth feel and way it captures and filters the light.
In the end, your film gave me a sigh of relief in relation to the self analysis kaka that goes along with wanting to create meaningful and sincere art…so thank you for that and best of luck with your career. Hope to see more work from you…whenever you figure out the answers
.
Take your time!
Sorry, I meant to comment on the piece/art/craft itself, rather than the message…but, didn’t remember to do it until after I read other comments.
First, I didn’t get anything about it being a piece about a women making a movie and her image in it, except for the fact that the reason I selected it from the list of pieces was that it was about a young pretty artistic woman in a struggle.
But, the music, pace, framing, colors, verbiage and subtle increase of commentary in the content as the piece progressed seemed comfortable and real and thus interesting.
I was happy to see who the composer was, as I have a lot of respect for him.
So, I thought it was pretty cool…and surprisingly, it had me wondering if it could even become a longer piece as the answers come into place for you.