 |
|||
 |
|||
| DDISCUSSION If you have seen The Box Man and would like to offer any thoughts about the film, please send it here and we will post them. In the future, this may become a better organized conversation, but for now, this will have to do . . . Last Updated: 4/22/04
A 'Ballard' comic that someone sent us. |
|||
| 4/30/03 - Question about The Shooter I saw The Box Man Friday night in San Francisco, stayed afterward and was a bit disappointed that you did not say more about the short and what it meant to you, the story you thought it was telling. I thought it was brilliant, disturbing a la "the Lottery" (you know, that short story) and in the tradition of the best short stories it continues to niggle at me. It raises so many questions: Who was in the box to begin with? Why did the shooter get into the box himself? Why did he shoot the box in the first place-- did he want the box for himself, or did he resent someone being in the box at all? And who is the box man, the first occupant of the box, or the second? I don't know why I find these questions so fascinating, I am beguiled by the actions of this second man (the shooter) and feel compelled to pick apart his motivations. Somehow I think that he began as someone who is not very insightful, who just felt this rage at this person hanging out in the box, and then ended up realizing that he wanted what that person had, what he had stolen. And that somehow by virtue of his crime he has set himself on a path of personal discovery and will perhaps become some sort of box guru. Well, I just wanted to say thank you for the experience, and for giving me something to ponder on the bus. I wish you the best of luck! [Jenny B]
5/3/03 - RE: Question about The Shooter Thanks Jenny, sorry the SF Q & A was disappointing. i thought it was odd too. People just weren't asking questions. maybe it was because i had a cardboard box on my head? i left wondering if the audience was really engaged or just watching passively. Anyway, it's really nice to hear it stayed with someone. Who is The Lottery by? you might like Kobo Abe's novel, The Box Man. there is a lot of ambiguity about who the real box man is. my film has a lot of personal meanings, but metaphors abound. as for The Shooter, i think he was at first disturbed to be observed, having experienced the anxiety of being seen, and then jealous of the contained point of view provided by the box. i wanted there to be a tension and a question as to the motivation of The Shooter- was he interested in the man in the box or just the box? ultimately, it was just the box. i think both men are the box man. the film tries to show one of the ways that a man can become a box man, the novel suggests several others. Who knows how the first box man came to be in that box? Perhaps he shot someone as well, or maybe he just crawled into his refrigerator box and wandered out into the world. And in a way, the shooter lived in a box as well, his was just slightly larger (his apartment walls are lined with normal scale cardboard). The Shooter wanted to be in control, which is easier in a smaller box. because good things come to those who wait in small packages. s come [nirvan]hose who wait in small packages. 5/13/03 - The Anxiety of Being Seen I think that's interesting, what you say about the anxiety of being seen, because I can't really relate to that. Can you? I think most people define themselves through other people's eyes, and being seen is integral to their self-discovery, other people's observations help shape their own identity. Perhaps the shooter is a true renegade and wants the freedom to define himself away from other people's ideas and society's definitions of what we ought to be? But that makes him sound more noble than his behavior in the short would indicate. The Lottery is by Shirley Jackson, and I actually found a link to it for you; it's only 4 pages long. I think its eerie macabre apparent normality might appeal to you; I for one did not at all like it when I read it in high school ten years ago, but it has stuck with me and I think of it at random moments. [Jenny B]
5/15/03 - RE: The Anxiety of Being Seen Yes, I can relate to the anxiety of being seen. There is such a difference from being seen and being the one who sees. I think this anxiety is part of what you refer to as the cause for self-reflection; people defining themselves through other people's eyes. It is a certain pressure to see yourself through another's gaze. The Shooter's behavior is not noble; he is just afraid of having someone see him, or in another sense, of seeing himself. You can't free yourself of other people's ideas by destroying these people. This is not freedom, it is just isolation. (This is sort of what I meant in SF when someone asked who played The Shooter, and I said George Bush.) [nirvan]
12/22/03 - Opening up to Others I guess my main thought about The Box Man is a rather obvious one: "whoever tries to wall off others ends up imprisoning himself." You gave this idea a poignant immediacy that I find very compelling. But what do you think that opening up to, or including, others actually entails? Do you think it primarily involves ignoring or celebrating differences? Richard Rorty's Achieving our Country stresses the former, while Iris Marion Young's Justice and the Politics of Difference stresses the latter. Let me know what you think. [Douglas Berggren]
12/24/04 - RE: Opening up to Others Hey Dr. Berggren, great to hear from you! (Douglas was my Philosophy Professor and facutly advisor at New College.) As to the Idea of "opening up to, or including, others" and what that entails . . . Of course, opening up entails a risk. You put yourself out there. It can make you vulnerable, it can make you subject to criticism, it can reveal your secrets and result in rejection. To face these risks and be open is a sign of strength, though often we create borders which are perhaps symptoms of insecurity. Borders can be political or emotional. Celebrating differences sounds more ideal, but in practice, we often ignore, and I think that there is a very practical reason for doing so, though it might not be very noble. My guess is that it is fear of some sort. I've never read these books, but i cant help but read into their titles: Young's celebration of differences toward the goal of Justice certainly evokes the Ideal idea of Difference, and seems brave, while Rorty's Achieving Our Country sounds like it might take an appropriately critical view of the way our country actively Ignores Differences in practice. America as box man. Is this the case? Maybe I'm way off. In the sense that being open to others is brave, i think one would also have to primarily Celebrate differences, as opposed to Ignoring them. Ignoring them seems to suggest Tolerance without Understanding. How does Rorty reconcile Ignoring differences with being open to and including others? I
dont think I always embrace difference (though I'd like to think I do).
In pracice, it feels more like a constant balancing of ones notion of
self with ones understanding of the other; both developing simultaneously,
moving from simplicity to complexity, back and forth (i hope to end
with simplicity). Sometimes i think it helps to isolate yourself so
you can really see yourself in a clean space and other times to see
yourself in other people who are different than you. For me, making
this film was a period of extreme isolation, but sharing it has been
extremely social. I like to move back and forth between these extremes,
but the guy in The Box Man much prefers the thin end of the stick. [nirvan]ho
4/13/04 - The discussion of the box man Hi Nirvan, I met you at Slamdance, I played the street girl in IPO in the alley scene... Anyway
your film came up in a converstion that I had with Daniel Gamburg, I
have not seen it... I went to your website to check it out...
Great stuff!!... I was intrigued by the discussion section on
The Box Man and this inquiry into being the seen or the not seen...
Something I have considered... It seems to me that one cannot
answers their own questions about themselves in the face of another.
It is more of a play of mirrors, the constant defining and redefining
one'sself in the reflection and the responses one gets from the reflection,
but the seeking of one's self seems to be the most important factor
here... And I do understand the desire to be seen and to hide
at the same time... Perhaps one is luckier in the face of a negative
reaction than in the positive for if one receives the reflection from
a negative perspective the mirror can be broken because one is forced
to turn inward and rely upon inner resources or cultivate those that
are underdeveloped... It is really a fascinating topic, though
I cannot speak clearly about it in relationship to your film becuase
I have not seen it yet... I would be curious after I do see it
if you were just playing with an idea or if you were seeking to articulate
something else within yourself... Perhaps something fragmented
as you somewhat describe in your respones to the others regarding the
Box Man... I think a question that needs to be posed here
is do we question ourselves and our own vision?... Do we see clearly
into whatever we may be peaking into?... And what are we looking
for when we approach anything?... Anyway just a thought...
I would love to hear back from you, though this is all somewhat irrelevant
since I haven't seen the film yet... Sorry if I am way off...
I was into the ideas though... Thanks for the lead on the miniature sculptures... Those are fascinating... MiMi Alain
4/14/04 - RE: The discussion of the box man hey
mimi, i can't help but imagine that your experience as an actor might contribute to your ideas about seeing vs. being seen. it is an interesting concept; i don't think it is ever possible to see yourself through the eye's of another. perhaps that is where part of the anxiety comes from? that we never really know how we are perceived. i know that for me, i am more comfortable behind a camera than in front of one. animation has been a great way to stay in the background while making an idea visible. but as i begin to work with live-action and actors, i also feel a need to put myself in front of the camera so that i can see how it feels to be in their shoes. i
saw that IPO is being distributed online! that's cool, hope it goes
well.
4/21/04 - live action figures
it's interesting because as an actor you always want to remain the seer
not the seen... Self consciousness can kill you and especially
behind a camera... More what you are seeking is your own humanity
and truth from that place but you are still playing with illusion, and
what you need changes all the time depending on the circumstances and
the role... Extracting what you understand, and being able to
do that is what matters most, you do not have to be in the same circumstances
as the character, but you do need to be able to imagine those circumstances
fully to play the part... I think it is good if the director has
greater or at least as equal of an understanding as you do. The
ideal situation is when the director creates a safe environment for
the actors to push the edge of what they are willing to reveal, and
understands the actor as well as the technical aspect of things.
It does take a lot of courage because as an actor you are asked to reveal
that which in society is often most hidden or at least what one tries
to hide, and you will be held responsible for it. I think it is
much more frightneing to face one's self than it is to be seen.
It is what we see in ourselves that can chase us away from anything,
and that is what stops the actor... The acting is more an exercise
in Being than in anything else, so that the moment steals it's self
from you, the joy is when everything just merges and you can't
really name what is happening, it is spritual really if you can touch
that edge. I have been watching two birds that visit regularly
outside my window... they know I am there but that has no control
over their activity as long as I do not do anything to frighten them...
It is the same for the director. And the actor needs to dissappear into
the simplicity of living, not the complexity... Even what is planned
has its own direction once you are in the moment.. No different
than when you are painting and at a certain point the brush has it's
own intention, and you slip into another space... Moments that you speak
of probably last much longer than you realize... it is your presence,
the permanence of your experience there that makes them feel tiny, but
yet eternal, and that is why you seek them... The reason it is
important for the director to understand the position of the actor is
not so that he can prove that he/she can do it themselves, but it is
to have to dialogue to express the specific moments and get everyone
on the same page... and with acting there is that bliss of knowing that
everyone is working together and that the director can help bring you
to the places that are necessary to go to. Trust is everything...
If anything, it is good to know how to analyze a script from an
actor's perspcetive, and help them by speaking their language...
You as the director though are responsible for the whole and making
the story come to life... Some actors, especially in film, concern
themselves with the whole script(story) some do not... You as the director
do not need to know so much what it means to be behind the camera as
it does to be human. If you are in touch with that in your self
you will understand what is asked of the actor.. Of course all
of this varies, the intensity and levels depending on the type of story
etc.. Always as an actor I am making the attempt to let something
reveal its'self to me and to the story and to others... It is
the revelation that you seek, and it all changes given the dynamics
you experiece with others... You can have an idea but if your
fellow actor plays it differently you have to chase that moment and
totally let go of what you had in mind, especialy with film where there
is very little rehearsal... Surrender is a huge part of it, and
the dissolution of the small I, so someone else's story can be told
through you... I love that, to climb into someone else's stroy and play...
That is why I do it. When I seem sad when I act I am actually
in bliss... It is a weird joy and freedom... It's like being
unleashed... And it is sharing... That is different...
and then it is up to whomever is watching to have their own experience.
There is no control, form the actor's perspective. That is why
it is like life.... And did I mention previously, That
I HAVE NOT YET SEEN YOUR FILM!!! Hey maybe the one second film is like this; captured in poetry... She
arched back And I wil be sending you a few dollars so that I can take credit for things that I have not done and have control over things that I have no control over. Blessings...
|
|||
 |
|
|
|
