No responses to this? Has anyone seen all three related films (Koyanisqaatsi and the one that starts with a “p.”)
I prefer Baraka to the first 2 films of the Qaatsi trilogy (I haven’t seen the third yet)
Baraka for me was an over all experience .. i was absorbed from frame one …
then the cinematographer in me appreciated each and every aesthetic of it, including the camera which Fricke built himself I believe .. the time lapse technology that they designed themselves and how tight everything is ..
but yes .. overall one of favorite cinematic experiences .. and also, i might add, my favorite Bluray I own in terms of quality ..
I would still like to see Fricke’s first attempt at directing one of these documentaries, Chronos .. and am very excited for his third attempt Samsara (which is a direct sequel to Baraka I believe) ..
overall too I think the editing is MUCH tighter in Baraka than the 2 Qaatsi films I’ve seen.
Upon just looking it up .. it seems the final cut of Samsara is due this year and maybe a premiere will follow? (filming started in 2007)
I agree JP. Baraka is a lot more enjoyable than the Qaatsi trilogy.
So what are some things that make you like Baraka more than Reggio’s films—or was it primarily the editing?
My initial reaction was that I felt like it was basically a re-hash of Koyanisqaatsi. Also, I grew up watching a lot of nature programs, so the visuals, especially of landscape and fauna weren’t especially impressive to me. (I felt the same way towards Winged Migration.)
For me “Baraka” is quite better. The editing is smoother. Different places, times and themes seem to merge seamlessly. The cinematography is simply stunning (it’s one of the best looking films I’ve ever seen). Also Michael Stearns’ music is perfect, enhancing the visuals and making “Baraka” a truly memorable experience. Of course one may say that Fricke had the advantage of having worked with Reggio and seen his previous films. To me, that only means that he was able to extract the best of that and apply it to his own work.
_Indeed, I preferred the music a lot more. _
no no no NO NO!!! I guess I haven’t seen Baraka, but I’m sure the music in Koyaanisqatsi is much better. Maybe I’ll start a new thread about how much I like that score.
I like both of these movies.
But I think that Reggio was the pioneer, in spite of the cinematographer’s obviously large contribution. And I think that the very smoothness of BARAKA that many have cited has always made me a bit more suspicious of it than KOYANISQAATSI. In spite of being less smooth, I do believe the Reggio to be more unified. The original score goes a long way towards determining that, but I also think that BARAKA ends with images being amazing while Reggio’s images were chosen for more inherent depth about human systems, patterns, travel…plumbing.
I greatly preferred Koyanisqaatsi over Baraka with Koyanisqaatsi felt more coherent, planned, and transited between scenes much more dynamically than Baraka which heightened tension and felt like it was indeed building up to something where I felt Baraka didn’t successfully do that. Phillip Glass’ score also helped Koyanisqaatsi to achieve this while Michael Stern’s score for Baraka felt disjointed and random at times. I see Koyanisqaatsi having a purpose while Baraka felt like an imitation but alas, a good one.
Jazzaloha
I just saw this recently, and, unforutately, the film didn’t really do much for me. I don’t mean to casually dismiss the film, as I wanted to like it. I’m going to post some thoughts and impressions of the film, but before I do, let me just say that I watched this with my three year old son. Most of the time I provided commentary for each of the shots, asking him questions or telling him what he was looking at and pointing out where the shots took place on a globe. So, maybe this took away from my experience. With that, here are some thoughts
1. I didn’t think it was better than Reggio’s first film. Indeed, I preferred the music a lot more.
2. Here’s my take on the “story:” First, we see more representations of spirituality and nature—suggesting a harmony betweeen man and nature. Next, we see man made things, which eventually lead to destructive consequences (holocaust, Pol Pot, trash heaps, etc.). Finally, the film returns to the more spiritual elements. The message seems really obvious and pretty shallow (sorry, I don’t mean to be harsh).
3. The visual aspects of the film were good—but my sense is that they weren’t significantly better than things I’ve seen from other films.
OK, these are some of my thoughts. Maybe I’m totally off base, or missed something, so I’m interested in hearing from those who loved the film.