Wow. Speechless. As soon as the documentary started I had a sensory overload. The ominous bell ringing along with the confusing visual imagery left me tense and unnerved. It didn’t take long for the headache to sink in and for me to start to count down the seconds for the film to end. I felt my shoulders tighten and found any excuse to look away from the screen. I couldn’t tell what made me more uncomfortable in the audience, the ominous underscore of the documentary or the unsettling visuals used throughout the entirety of the filming. Despite the visceral reaction I just described, which I can only describe as unpleasant, I would definitely recommend watching Koyaanisqatsi to others. I feel people should watch things that make them uncomfortable. By doing so, the audience can explore themselves better and, with this documentary especially, explore a side of a discussion that they typically miss.

The way I viewed the purpose of this documentary was to show that the human world is headed towards disaster. In the opening scenes of the documentary it showed many picturesque views of natural landscapes that had gloomy, threatening “music” played along with it. Without this music setting a scary tone these images would have been considered beautiful and they, arguably, still were just in a much more haunting manner. As the documentary progressed elements of human life and the interaction of humans with nature were portrayed. With the insertion of humans and human elements into Koyaanisqatsi there was a significant change in the music. Images became more hectic and the music was less chilling and more annoying. By the end of the movie nature was completely absent, all that was shown was people in congested cities. All the activities shown were monotonous, moving at accelerated speeds for extended periods of time. It seemed to portray a society that was moving in the wrong direction into chaos. A monotonous, unfulfilling life is depicted seeming to show that we, as a society, is moving in a direction that isn’t beneficial to us or the natural world we live in, before we finally eliminate all of nature in the closing minutes of the film. Lastly the film ends with the destruction of the rocket, a man made object, almost seeming to say that the world we have constructed is headed for destruction itself.

Koyaanisqatsi is a powerful film, spreading the message that the human world is to become inevitably bleak by making the audience uncomfortable. This approach seemingly works; I did not leave class Monday comfortable or happy.

All of the debates in the media about the Syrian refugees recently reminded me of a documentary that came out a few years ago called climate refugees. A climate refugee is a person displaced by climatically induced environmental disasters. Such disasters result from incremental and rapid ecological change, resulting in increased droughts, desertification, sea level rise, and the more frequent occurrence of extreme weather events such as hurricanes, cyclones, fires, mass flooding and tornadoes. I am worried that these refugees will not have any country to turn to, similar to these Syrian Refugees. In both cases there is little the refugees have done to cause the issues they now face, but they are stuck dealing with the consequences. With a potential for hundreds of thousands if not millions of climate change refugees coming in the next century, a global plan to deal with them is needed.

This is an incredibly interesting and inspiring documentary, and I encourage you all to check it out.

As professor smith said in class, this was a film that completely different than anything I had ever seen. The only other movie I had watched without any speaking was the artist. While I had not particularly enjoyed that movie, I found Koyaanisqatsi incredibly powerful.

The film starts with serene images of canyons, mountains, forests, and oceans. The music is repetitive in a way that washes over you and provides a sense of tranquility and happiness. The music then drastically changes and images of nature are replaced by highways and skyscrapers. Ominous music blares as you see nuclear power plants and hoards of human beings scurrying through cities.

While the music was captivating and really helped convey the tone that the author was portraying, what really stood out to me about the movie was the incredible videography. The shots of nature were all incredibly striking and beautiful. Many of them were overhead and slow. I especially loved the sped up shots of the clouds flowing over the mountaintops. These sped up shots were in stark contrast to the sped up shots of people in the streets. The people seemed to be scurrying all over the place with no real purpose. Going and going and going but doing so unnecessarily.

I felt the peak of the movie was about half way through. This was the only time that there was no music behind the tracking shots. After such a long score that never stopped, the quiet felt deafening. It was at this moment of quiet that a city of rubble was shown with no people in it. I think the point was to demonstrate that we are destroying these naturally sceneries to build and build more and more but in the end the legacy we will be leaving on this earth is one of ruin.

This was definitely a very different film than I am used to seeing. The part that stood out to me the most was the musical score. Even as I am writing this, I have the lyrics, deep and slow of “Koyaanisqatsi” echoing through my head. The score certainly added a lot to the film. Images within the film without the soundtrack would have had a very different effect and probably would not portray the message as effectively. As a whole, I was not the biggest fan of the film. I have a short attention span and changing images and music was not enough to keep me engaged throughout the entire hour and a half. I can definitely see why this film has a cult-like following but at  this point I cannot count myself among those people.

First, I think the message of the film is very clearly stated by the title, Koyaanisqatsi, translating to “life out of balance.” The film maker did a very effective job of juxtaposing incredibly scenic and impressive landscape shots with daily scenes within human life. I think the landscapes which showed vast landscapes really contrasted with the shots of human activity which typically showed either lots of quick, repetitive motion or tightly compacted areas. One comparison that really stuck out to me was the factory line producing hot dogs, which then shortly after cut to people filing up escalators. While it is not explicitly said, which is part of the beauty of this piece, the two are being compared the similarities, while laughable, are remarkably the same.

I think a major part of this film is the feeling you get while watching it. Even though I did not  particularly care for this film, the combination of music and images constantly put me on edge and feel a little bit anxious. When paired with the translation of the title, the film really brings to life the idea of humans acting out of balance with nature and the continuation of these actions may lead to disaster, a point that was really emphasized for me with one of the final scenes of the exploding rocket.

I thought the film was interesting. It was very in your face with it’s message and made you feel like you were part of the problem too almost. That being said it was a little abrasive and maybe longer than I cared to watch for, but still had a valuable point to make. I’d probably recommend seeing the film at least once because I think its so powerful that even one viewing would be enough to change the viewers perspective on humanity and nature.

The film made use of all types of media especially musical score and the shots taken. The film wants the user to realize the drastic differences between the natural world and the modern civilizations. It focuses early on large desert landscapes, using a slow ominous score to highlight the grandness and the meandering pace of nature. One contrast that I thought was interesting was the shot that pans across a winding river in a canyon, which would have been formed over millions of years, later compared to the enormous abandoned apartment complex, which is eventually demolished. Shots like these contrast the longevity of nature relative to human creations.

The film is filled with shots like this that are intended to make the watcher question their ‘crazy lives’ and wonder if they are just another cog in the machine. As the film progresses it shows more and more people and eventually peaks at images of apparently frozen or distorted computer images. This shot emphasizes that we may rely too much on our technological advances and again be caught when they too fail.

Koyaansqatsi wants us to reconsider our existence as a society and wonder if we might not simplify a little, back towards our natural past. It is a powerful message, powerfully conveyed through cinematography and music, without words.

I actually really enjoyed the film. It started out slow and my mindset was looking at it as just an assignment, but then as it went on, I found myself more and more entranced by the scenery and music. The best word I can use to describe it is mesmerizing. The music was the most responsible for this. Laid on top of the flashing images, I found myself unable to look away and scrambling to type down some notes once the scene changed and I was released from its spell. The shots that were displayed were also so complex that I never felt bored or not engaged despite the lack of words. My eyes were too busy flicking from scene to scene to notice the lack of words. It always amazed me how powerful a message films like these can send simply with a musical score, video, and no dialogue or text. Granted this is not a film I would have ever watched on my own, I thoroughly enjoyed watching it in class and it was one of the better required films I have had to watch.

A sad part of my thanksgiving break was having to discuss where we were going to spread my grandpa’s ashes in December. We decided that we should spread them in the cove of Angel Island, one of his favorite sailing spots. Thinking a lot about my grandpa over break made me wonder how much a love for nature is passed down and how much is discovered by the individual and dependant on the individual. I think one of the reasons that I love being outside so much is because my grandpa used to take me sailing or camping every other weekend growing up. I learned to really appreciate being outside from him. On the other hand, I have not sailed in three years, and actually do not enjoy sailing very much. Instead I have found enjoyment in other things that he was not passionate about such as hiking and rock climbing.

What do you guys think is the greatest influence in fostering a love for the outdoors?

I was wondering about the environmental impact of investing in an artificial christmas tree versus cutting one down every year. This New York Times article says that buying the real thing still has less of an environmental impact. The carbon footprint of a fake tree is much larger than all the trees you cut down over 10 years would ever have.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/18/business/energy-environment/18tree.html?_r=0

Repeat After me… “KOYAANISQATSI”

Koyaanisqatsi (1983). Directed by Godfrey Reggio; music by Philip Glass, cinematography by Ron Fricke. The title, which also serves as theme and plot, comes from the Hopi language and translates roughly as “life out of balance,” “crazy life,” or “life disintegrating.” Void of dialog or characters (other than the human race as a whole), Koyaanisqatsi is pure image and music. Reggio provides vast and stunning scenes of the natural world, equally beautiful human creations of the city and industry, as well as the relentless pace (and cost) of modern life. Striking in its association of unlike objects and scenes, and propelled by Glass’ hypnotic score, Koyaanisqatsi asserts a specific claim and argues powerfully from a particular ideological position.

Where is this film effective in conveying its “emotional” message? How does the film manipulate (though chosen in camera, sound or editing) its audience? How, for instance, is nature portrayed? How is culture portrayed? What does the mise-en-scene suggest? How are individual people represented in Koyaanisqatsi? Where is the camera located? Where is the speed of the film varied and why? What would you say is the tone of the film and how is it established? Look for things like time, perspective, movement, repetition, and sound. How does the music function in the film? Does the music provide support or actually drive the narrative? How?

Koyaanisqatsi as a good example of “associational form,” and editing technique that juxtaposes seemingly unlike things to prove a point. If you believe this film lacks typical narrative organization and subsequently relies upon its audience noticing recurring elements, what are some of those elements? Where do motifs repeat? Where does the grouping of images and/or sound express concepts or even argumentative points?

What are the politics of this film? Is Koyaanisqatsi propaganda? If so, what kind and what makes it so?

In response to our viewing of Koyaanisqatsi, please offer a two part/paragraph blog post:

Part One: Provide your gut reaction. Say how the film made you feel. Were you moved? Irritated? Disgusted? Go ahead and vent if you want. Would you recommend this film? Why?

Part Two: Delineate the argument, thesis, or point of the film. Be as objective and as different from your personal tone in Part One as you can. How is the argument advanced? Detail some formal choices you noticed and analyze the manipulation of the viewer. How, exactly, is the argument made? Think of your task as explaining what goes on behind the magic curtain to those in the audience who see only the show and are unaware of the manipulation. What is nature, or the state of nature, according to Koyaanisqatsi, and how is this portrait achieved cinematically?

And maybe this: Can art help us save the world?

For reference, here are translations of the Hopi Prophecies sung in the film:

“If we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster.”
“Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky.”
“A container of ashes might one day be thrown from the sky, which could burn the land and boil the oceans.”

“Environmentalists so often seem self-righteous, privileged, and arrogant because they so readily consent to identifying nature with play and making it by definition a place where leisured humans come only to visit and not to work, stay, or live. Thus environmentalists have much to say about nature and play and little to say about humans and work. And if the world were actually so cleanly divided between the domains of work and play, humans and nature, there would be no problem. Then environmentalists could patrol the borders and keep the categories clear. But the dualisms fail to hold; the boundaries are not so clear. And so environmentalists can seem an ecological Immigration and Naturalization Service, border agents in a social dubious, morally ambiguous, and ultimately hopeless cause” (White 173). 

I think this is an incredibly oversimplified view of environmentalism. I couldn’t quite find when this essay was published, but I think someone would have to be fairly ignorant to say that about the environmental movement recently. The sustainable farming movement, specifically, has taken off drastically and it is becoming more mainstream for environmentalists to work on organic farms. Programs like WWOOF have made that even more of a reality for people. Furthermore, fields such as geology, conservation biology, and other science fields generally go hand in hand with environmentalism and involve, quite directly, working in nature. Additionally, conservation hunting is a thing, despite its’ lack of mainstream appeal. Although outdoor recreation and leisure is still a large part of environmentalism, the preservation v. conservation divide is not nearly as intense now as it has been in the past.

“Fast forward to the textbook, which airs plenty of against-the-grain opinions, like the contention that nature is more resilient than most environmentalists realize (Kareiva won’t even utter the adjective fragile when discussing ecosystems) or the unsentimental assertion that the days of pristine wilderness are long gone. Mankind’s fingerprints can be found everywhere on the planet. Get over it, Kareiva would say. And start focusing on preserving what’s left of the good (if no longer great) outdoors” (Dunkel 35).

This passage captures the heart of what is so special about how Kareiva approaches conservation. Its much more realistic, less emotional, and, I think, can do more good than many other approaches. It has been proven that the doom and gloom messages of past environmentalism simply don’t motivate most people. Messages that are more realistic and clearly outline that there is an important role for humans that can result in a positive change are the productive messages that should be more prevalent in environmentalism and conservation alike.