A much better match between the bent of the filmmaker and subject, and the filmmaker's tiresome reiteration of the subjective nature of vision and film. The bridges are to nature and space what the film and camera are posited to be to us. I do not feel it is sucessfully embodied, but the mismatch had a kind of poetic resonance somehow.
A 24 minute long film with no sounds. I don't recommend watching this. I do appreciate the structures but I wish there would've been a little background on them rather then just panels of shots. I found myself falling asleep, tempted to skip through, dreaming off. Always will appreciate the process of going to the different locations, I needed more going on personally. Looking at bridges for 24 minutes is a no for me
"Hey,I'm not gonna watch 20 minutes of shots of bridges with ambient noise" -I thought, closing the video. Then I watched 20 minutes of shots of bridges with ambient noise. Actually fascinating. The quiet made me start thinking things like "Isn't it crazy how bridges work?" but also things like "Isn't it crazy how montages of shots work with like, your eyes?" so that's late-night Avant-Garde doc film for me I guess.
Le film nous laisse le temps pour la réflexion. Ces plans de la contemplation ne cherchent pas le beau ni le réel mais plus une sorte d'invisible. Et l'invisible c'est la trace de l'architecte. L'autobiographie n'est pas une parole mais plus un passage; c'est dire qu'un homme a été à un endroit, à un moment donné. Et donner, c'est ce qu'il a fait: donner au monde.
This short show off a lot of bridges for those interested in architecture and the history of it, but halfway through I started to nod off, but this one could work perfectly as an airline pause segment to waste off some time while in midair as you dream of landing down on Earth again to behold bridge on land again.
this short especially epiphanized (word?) me as to the wonders of the craftmanship we take for granted daily (as evidenced by the generic sexual and racist graffiti planted on some of the bridges)...it was also cool to see how the architect was able to situate subtly his works alongside their surroundings....all i can say is, it makes me want to take a walk and LOOK, and that's a compliment....
This film was extremely unique in its visual and audio display throughout the short twenty minutes or so. The camera is always at an angle in each shot and the audio contains only background noise. The entire film is divided into sections based on the location and is made of a series of short shots taken in each location. First the location is identified and then a handful of shots will play until the next section.
At first I thought it was the filmmaker’s way of saying, “This is what I choose to look at and this is how I see it.” Then there were the inconsistent camera tilts reminding me that the human eye just doesn’t work that way. Too vague or intellectually “snobbish” for me to determine a connection or any concrete meaning.
I tried to watch this a few days after not finishing Sullivan's Banks. I couldn't finish this one, either, but now I know what left me cold. Mubi suggests this is "Architecture as Autobiography," and now I understand that framing to refer to the filmmaker rather than the architects. It is like watching his home movies of the objects he obsesses over. All I hear is "Look at that!" but I don't see what he sees.