Bike film

I liked it. Mostly because it had a bike in it though. Wasn't sure about the choice of music, although it is a lovely piece of music. Probably wouldn't have like it if it was about horses.

People should make more fixed gear films. I like making films. Maybe I will make one. Anyone got any ideas? Non porn-related.

Non porn-related.

There goes my ideas....

Bloody hell chaps, I've never seen so much analysis for such a short film. Insightful opinions from you lot. I just thought it was a bloke on a bike in the desert. Thanks for the breakdown, I might have to think next time I watch one of these...

JB

It was better when Top Gear did it

What a load of artsy wank. That bike was no way designed for that sort of terrain.

Well here's my take: it's an exercise in perversity. The guy rides himself to halt, merely to place a stone in a stoneless environment, to leave his mark, to give him meaning. Also its bike v car: the flats are an iconic place associated with cars. Flat, smooth, stoneless. You see him cross tyretracks. He rides and rides and then places the stone, that smooth, car-friendly surface disrupted like the way a cyclist 'disrupts' the road

I did a Masters in Film. I have a tendency to over-analyse. Don't judge me

*clap clap clap

very interesting take on it, see i saw the tyre tracks and though nthe director was a bit of a donut for missing it

I think he's just pushing himself to train that little bit harder each time.

i thought that origionally but thought the definetly couldn't be it

i think thats the point is that you interpret it in your own way

maybe im wrong

overall I think it had a very relaxing, calm feel to it. the location of open and lonely salt flats in conjunction with the monotonous, yet very beautiful music definitely had a very calm effect on me. There have been a lot of comments regarding the narrative and what the point of the story was, but I think the vague storyline (whatever it is, i didn't give it much thought) is only put in place to add a little more depth to the film. In my opinion the film would have worked just as well without the narrative, because for me it was more about the object within the location, music and cinematography. My only complaint is that i think it could have been shot a little more interestingly and was a little bit too long, but overall very good!

I agree: I did say I tend toward over-analysis. We studied a lot of Roland Barthes (who is probably out of date now)

Don't even know him! I mean, I've heard the name, but not read any further.

but his theory of semiotics means that every image contains symbolism and provides a structure of interpretation.

This sounds like a very 'thin' theory--are you sure that there isn't more to it? I can hardly imagine that this point of view is unique or original to Barthes, or even referenced as 'semiotics' most of the time.

I think what you're saying is sufficient and very worthy, but you can go deeper if you are so inclined.

Ain't. ;)

I will counter the perversity element tho: the film very explicitly references the tradition of the salt flats, and mimics its record-breaking past. I think you have to remember that present land-speed attempts are quite iodine compared to the pioneering ones of yesteryear, which are closely associated with the location. These men built machines in their garages, risked life and limb. It was eccentric, it was obsessive and I think describing it as perverse isn't out of place. Given that reference I'll stick with my initial vibe from the film.

It helps if you know that history--I don't. I think films are always more valuable if they only reference things that everyone can understand from the reference without having to access data banks of culture-specific background material. Simple things, often the most important things. If I find value in a film that does important and simple things, that's usually enough for me, as that is what can be reliably shared and understood by as many people as possible. (Of course, no film is free of specific cultural references, but for me, the fewer the better.)

Complicated and recherché I think only works if you can point to full-on filmic evidence that it's there. I think here, obsession isn't--no collapsing in exhaustion, etc., as I said above. Uh, I'm getting obsessed with this now. ;)

I don't even think that the two kinds of activities, someone's car driving and his bike riding, necessarily share the gradual improvement thing. I agree that car driving is referenced in the tyre tracks, but of course these are not necessarily tyre tracks from record attempts (erm, do record breaking cars even use tyres? ;) ).

All of these things could be built in, of course, if the film-maker wanted to revise anything. As it is, I think any meaning beyond the bread-and-butter interpretation isn't clear. There are so few stylistic devices--e.g., no dialogue--that I think it would really be quite hard to nail more meaning down clearly. IMHO.

Which leaves us with the film-maker's intention ...

Perhaps I am Russel can shed some light on the filmmaker's intent. I'm sure both will be proud they have provoked some debate

... and there I can only say: 'It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.' ;)

I've had too much cider tonight to attempt a resposte. Beware, it will come. Be afraid

It's a film about this crazy guy right? Who falls in love with a rock, but that makes him know he is crazy, so he blocks it out by spending all he has on a bicycle with mismatched wheels. But this rock starts talking to him and then he knows he's really crazy. So he calls his buddy and says 'Hey look dude, I'm going fucking nuts, I love this rock and it's telling me to ride into the desert'. And his friend is like 'Shit dude, what the fuck are you on?', but he's like, 'No I'm serious, get your 4x4 and let's go. I have this awesome courier bag and I put my rock in it and you have to film me and lets go to the flats.' So they go but as soon as the crazy guy really starts spinning out there on the salt he's like, 'Jesus I have to end this.' So he slams and pulls out the rock and he's like, 'I'M GOING TO LEAVE YOU IN THE SALT YOU STUPID ROCK!'. And his buddy, who was really his cousin, freaks, and leaves him to die.

This sounds like a very 'thin' theory--are you sure that there isn't more to it? I can hardly imagine that this point of view is unique or original to Barthes, or even referenced as 'semiotics' most of the time.

Its been five years and several thousand pints of cider since my Masters, so I'm not going to do him justice. Maybe wikipedia can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Barthes
I had to do a presentation using his theory to interpret a series of images, which were some Banksy stuff (back when he was cool). This was the book and interpretive structure we used:

"Barthes' many monthly contributions that made up Mythologies (1957) would often interrogate pieces of cultural material to expose how bourgeois society used them to assert its values upon others. For instance, portrayal of wine in French society as a robust and healthy habit would be a bourgeois ideal perception contradicted by certain realities (i.e. that wine can be unhealthy and inebriating). He found semitiotics, the study of signs, useful in these interrogations. Barthes explained that these bourgeois cultural myths were second-order signs, or significations. A picture of a full, dark bottle is a signifier relating to a signified: a fermented, alcoholic beverage - wine. However, the bourgeois take this signified and apply their own emphasis to it, making ‘wine’ a new signifier, this time relating to a new signified: the idea of healthy, robust, relaxing wine. Motivations for such manipulations vary from a desire to sell products to a simple desire to maintain the status quo. These insights brought Barthes very much in line with similar Marxist theory"

What I took from it is that images are laden with layers of meaning and signs, and that even simple images cannot be taken merely at face value. Anyway I digress, and I probably only threw in Barthes to gain a little credibility. Bad James

Ain't. ;)

Your choice, and a worthy one

It helps if you know that history--I don't. I think films are always more valuable if they only reference things that everyone can understand from the reference without having to access data banks of culture-specific background material. Simple things, often the most important things. If I find value in a film that does important and simple things, that's usually enough for me, as that is what can be reliably shared and understood by as many people as possible. (Of course, no film is free of specific cultural references, but for me, the fewer the better.)

Complicated and recherché I think only works if you can point to full-on filmic evidence that it's there. I think here, obsession isn't--no collapsing in exhaustion, etc., as I said above. Uh, I'm getting obsessed with this now. ;)

I don't even think that the two kinds of activities, someone's car driving and his bike riding, necessarily share the gradual improvement thing. I agree that car driving is referenced in the tyre tracks, but of course these are not necessarily tyre tracks from record attempts (erm, do record breaking cars even use tyres? ;) ).

All of these things could be built in, of course, if the film-maker wanted to revise anything. As it is, I think any meaning beyond the bread-and-butter interpretation isn't clear. There are so few stylistic devices--e.g., no dialogue--that I think it would really be quite hard to nail more meaning down clearly. IMHO.

Which leaves us with the film-maker's intention ...

You haven't swayed me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_Salt_Flats are the Jerusalem of the motoring world, iconic for its involvement in land speed records, but also regularly used for drag racing and speed events. Top Gear very recently went there (not a huge endorsement I know, but you'll take the point). There is a mythology and history about the place that people like me who grew up reading books about cars and even watched a documentary recently on those early speed attempts (and I don't have a car at all btw) instantly recognises and knows. I realise that recognition isn't going to be universal so accept that as a personal response if you wish. However the filmmaker makes a very explicit reference to this: a sign saying "Bonneville Speedway 1 mile". He also references tyre tracks later on. Whether you know of the history or not, these are laden signifiers. For me this creates an allegory of our experience of riding on the road: the cyclist is riding a place world famous for its association with cars, on even the 'speedway' itself. The environment is desolate, hostile. His exertions are parallel with the exertion of the cars over the decades seeking to go ever faster, set their own stones in the sand for someone to beat the next time. As I said, it becomes an allegory for our experience on the road, our daily efforts to deal with a hostile, deadly enviroment and ultimately survive.

I could go on, I literally could write and essay about this. I've just gone back and watched it for the second time and really loved it: it's beautiful but now I see the subtext (which I didn't look for until Crane asked for meaning) I think its very poignant too

[edit]Copy and paste fail

"Barthes' many monthly contributions that made up Mythologies (1957) would often interrogate pieces of cultural material to expose how bourgeois society used them to assert its values upon others. For instance, portrayal of wine in French society as a robust and healthy habit would be a bourgeois ideal perception contradicted by certain realities (i.e. that wine can be unhealthy and inebriating).

I certainly don't deny that Barthes will be right in asserting that there will be covert values inherent in much that is shown, and that it often helps to step back and analyse a little further, perhaps with information gathered elsewhere. For instance, I thought the recent film 'Goodbye Lenin', which I saw with two English friends, contained quite a lot of covert rightwing baggage, and I applied this liberally in my *criticism *of the film--although it did not form part of my interpretation. My friends were unaware of any of my grounds for criticism.

Whether I'd make a full-blown theory out of it I don't know. I find that people often become rigid when trying to follow rules that may have been formulated as an expression of the expertise of a skilled person.

He found semiotics, the study of signs, useful in these interrogations. Barthes explained that these bourgeois cultural myths were second-order signs, or significations. A picture of a full, dark bottle is a signifier relating to a signified: a fermented, alcoholic beverage - wine. However, the bourgeois take this signified and apply their own emphasis to it, making ‘wine’ a new signifier, this time relating to a new signified: the idea of healthy, robust, relaxing wine. Motivations for such manipulations vary from a desire to sell products to a simple desire to maintain the status quo. These insights brought Barthes very much in line with similar Marxist theory"

Why not say, simply, that the object 'bottle' may contain wine, and that wine may evoke different associations in different people. This can be manipulated by a skilled film-maker or by a good script or good camerawork or good lighting, etc. I don't see anything being gained by Barthes' terminology. Am I missing something?

Anyway I digress, and I probably only threw in Barthes to gain a little credibility.

:) Haven't we all?

Perhaps important to note that I don't think the film-maker of 'Perspective Lines' intends a covert imposition of their own values through manipulative means. ;)

You haven't swayed me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_Salt_Flats are the Jerusalem of the motoring world, iconic for its involvement in land speed records, but also regularly used for drag racing and speed events.

And would you know, I had never heard of it before. Seriously. The Bonneville sign didn't mean anything to me. I certainly noticed the tyre tracks but didn't connect them to anything beyond them being tyre tracks.

Top Gear very recently went there (not a huge endorsement I know, but you'll take the point).

As far as I'm concerned, they could just have stayed there. ;)

However the filmmaker makes a very explicit reference to this: a sign saying "Bonneville Speedway 1 mile". He also references tyre tracks later on. Whether you know of the history or not, these are laden signifiers. For me this creates an allegory of our experience of riding on the road: the cyclist is riding a place world famous for its association with cars, on even the 'speedway' itself. The environment is desolate, hostile. His exertions are parallel with the exertion of the cars over the decades seeking to go ever faster, set their own stones in the sand for someone to beat the next time. As I said, it becomes an allegory for our experience on the road, our daily efforts to deal with a hostile, deadly enviroment and ultimately survive.

I think a difference between us is that I'm actually blissfully unconcerned with what the film-maker may have meant/intended. I am only concerned whether they succeed in expressing it. One problem with such a short film is that there is no exposition. Dramatically, I think this sort of context should always be explained in an exposition so that thickos like me with little knowledge of speed record history can know what's going on and it is not just synthetic background provided, for themselves, by those in the know, a hit-and-miss affair.

So, if you're right about the film-maker's intentions, I think that making a film with this sort of background without a dramatic exposition is a fail; I do not think that it is enough to dump in some 'signifiers', however obvious they may be to some people. It is in any case not in the film-maker's interest, as it limits his or her receptive audience.

I'm a big traditionalist about dramatic structure. At the same time, I realise that the film-maker may not be and may have had a very different kind of film in mind. Fair enough.

I do like the film, BTW. I wouldn't say I love it, but it's a nice piece to watch.

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2008/12/bsnyc-friday-fun-quiz.html

"A high water mark of fixed gear pretentiousness" apparently!

After my bike ride I'm defo gonna read that and decide whether I'll reply, or spare the forum another round of** anal**ysing

After my bike ride I'm defo gonna read that and decide whether I'll reply, or spare the forum another round of** anal**ysing

Here's a list of some sample comments on that site, Jimmy:

** 92 comments: **

Anonymous said... no life
December 12, 2008 1:55 PM Jenn said... FIRST!
December 12, 2008 1:55 PM Anonymous said... Woot! Woot!
December 12, 2008 1:56 PM ant1 said... ant1st!

You'll fit right in.