Bob,
The "disturbing" warning was important. My opinion: The music and initial scenes were disturbingly fascinating. Part of me was turned off and offended at the same time; I've worked in state institutions with very unfortunate individuals whose appearance isn't far from what was pictured. But you can't put too much political correctness in a clip such as this or take it too seriously. The macabre factor kept me watching. Where I lost focus a bit is that I think the light beam/quick movement portion went on a bit too long and took away from that disturbing fascination a bit. It went from being eerie to being quirky.

I think it was very well edited, but too wierd and confusing for me.

/Ulf

I saw this a few years ago. Really disturbing but I couldn't stop watching. I never knew what was real and what wasn't - part of the fun I guess! Anyway it's a very good job and the creepy effect it produced in me was probably right on target!

One of the things I was taught early on was what my mentor called the "so what factor." If the audience (be it many or one), at the end of your movie (or after viewing any work of art) asks themselves "So what...?" then what have you accomplished?

Is every viewer going to "get it"? Is that necessary? Probably not (but it certainly helps, since art is an attempt to communicate).

No, I didn't get it. So the next question is "Do I want to spend the additional time and effort to get it?" No, not in this case. Not too far into it I found myself asking "How much longer will this go on?" This is a bad indicator for me.

Insofar as the edit is concerned, I'm feeling a bit ambivalent. I guess it worked for what it was... strange, very strange.

Yes, some art is meant to communicate and some just exists to evoke an emotional response. It was very well crafted in a distinctly disturbing way. I certainly had an emotional response. I liked it quite a bit despite it not necessarily being able to pass the "so what" test.

It engaged me enough to make me watch it till the end, and the images remain in my brain (seems like there may be a hit song in there somewhere).

Despite being somewhat aged, I got it... I think I got it....

"... some art is meant to... evoke an emotional response."

John, not trying to be a wise-guy, but if I punch you in the nose, would that not evoke an emotional response? Does that make my punching you a work of art?

After posting this and doing a bit of a Google I recall that another of Chris Cunningham's works, Come To Daddy, was also the topic of a thread here several years ago. He certainly has an interesting body of work to his name including:

.

Bob.

Where I lost focus a bit is that I think the light beam/quick movement portion went on a bit too long

I agree with CClub, But no question that this displays great talent and skill - especially editing skill. Imagine the script versus the final product.

No wonder that music video needed four Inferno artists... (see credits at the end).

"What does your Daddy do for a living?"

"He's an Inferno artist."

"Ohh."


[Inferno is a $500K+ Discreet/Autodesk post production system that earned its purchase price by being way more powerful than even recent desktop computers, but is now facing a major threat from mass-produced 64-bit desktops running Nuke, etc.]

"but is now facing a major threat from mass-produced 64-bit desktops running Nuke, etc."

Funny you should mention that. My cousin who first got me onto this video runs Maya and Nuke on a laptop. He does have free access to a serious render farm though. Despite all the serious software available where he works good use is still made of very cheap software. Out of focus backgrounds (trees, hills etc) don't need to be photorealistic even for the silver screen.

Bob.

"Does that make my punching you a work of art?"

No, but me punching you back would be. Guaranteed.