“Koyaanisqatsi” demonstrates how the technology once used to serve us now controls us. People no longer operate machines, the machines have automated the people. “Koyaanisqatsi” encourages a return to simpler living so that we may simply live. It is not an indictment of technology full stop, but rather the way modern conveniences are used not to make life easier, but to satisfy the insatiable capitalist system. We produce too much for “our” part of the world as the “rest of the globe” doesn’t have enough. Of course, the rather grim flipside to this film is “Powaqqatsi”. These films must be witnessed on the big screen to be appreciated for all they are worth. Apart from the messages one can gain from these dialogue-free documentaries, they are veritable feasts of sight and sound—most recommended.
At the beggining of the movie it seems like it could be an ode to technology. But then you clearly can see the train derail (the explosion of the rocket concluding the serie of nausea-inducing shots), confirming the concern about new technologies that Reggio wants to express.
So do you both disagree with Reggio that this is a film that is open to the viewers interpretation? It seems to me like it is rather a cliche to say ‘it is what the viewer sees in it’ and in this case when the filmmaker has a quite clear and explicit intent, he shouldn’t pretend that those who misunderstood it have an equally correct opinion. What do you think?
A look in general at Reggio’s work shows a firm stance, in my mind, as to what he’s trying to do, and seeing the work itself seems clear to me. His backing up of an opposing statement seems like a disinclination to turn anyone off from the film, plus an allowance that his work is a little ambiguous. I think all told he’s more interested in hearing what people have to say about the piece he created than try to continually reinforce his own viewpoint outside of the movie. There are many directors (Bunuel, Lynch) who pretty much refuse to state their opinions on their movies explicitly and prefer to watch other people figure them out.
—PolarisDiB
I’ve always thought that the aforementioned statement was somewhat fallacious; Reggio’s motives become apparent pretty quickly, and they are essentially confirmed once the title’s definition and the English translations of the Hopi prophecies are listed at the end. However, I can’t help but agree with him to an extent; the film is open to interpretation, and a large part of its appeal is the fact that the viewer is able to derive his or her unique experience from the film. Not to insinuate that the film imposes nothing on the viewer; it certainly does, but I usually try to separate the intended metaphor from the experience of the film as a whole. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a rhetorical failure but a complete sensory overload nonetheless. It’s engaging as a document of sight and sound, but the “ode to technology” assessment is one that I’ve never heard from anyone but Reggio himself.
I find the sensory experience being the main point of Reggio’s Koyaanisqatsi. Everything is indeed organized in such a way to reveal clearly the author’s point of view, but the amazing sequences combined with Glass’ minimalistic arrangements seem to me like a condensed voyeur’s dream.
Yes, there is a pattern, a specific “message” for each one or whatever, but just the trip for itself was really enjoyable. I feel a little guilty summarizing this great film as “aesthetics for aesthetics”, but that’s what appeals most for me on this one.
Reggio didn’t specify how many or what percentage of viewers saw his film as “an ode to technology,” He is in fact correct to say that each viewer has the freedom to interpret as he/she sees fit.
I happen to agree with most of you that the “preferred” interpretation is pro-Nature, but there are scenes in which the fast-motion cars wending through the nighttime freeways might be perceived as beautiful or amusing and the moon passing across an office building might be as aesthetically pleasing as that same moon disappearing behind a mountain.
Even though I realized before watching that he pretty much definitely made it with a pro-environment agenda in mind, I couldn’t help but find it as an ode to technology while I watched it. An ode to technology and how it, just like everything else in nature, is nature, and constantly reinvents itself. Only at the end with the far-too-long shot of the rocket falling and then the shot of the cave painting again did I find anything that was explicitly pro-environment, and I found it pretty bitchy. It seemed like he was saying “look – these rockets will fall, but these cave paintings are still here!” Come on, Godfrey – Indigenous people may be cool, but they didn’t have rockets, and they’re dead too.
Jon K
I just watched a video where Godfrey Reggio talks about Koyaanisqatsi.
One thing that I found a bit odd is that Reggio says (paraphrased) ‘People find their own meaning in the film, some see it as an environmentalist film, others see it as an ode to technology.’
Now it seems to me that Koyaanisqatsi is quite obviously a movie with a message and to some people that might be a reason to dislike it, and that anyone who sees it as an ‘ode to technology’ has basically misinterpreted the intention of the film. Reggio is saying that the meaning of the film is up to the interpretation of the viewer. Do you agree with him here? Or do you think the film (and maybe this could be a larger discussion about artwork in general) can be misinterpreted?
Also, does anyone here see Koyaanisqatsi as an ode to technology?