Two Dogs and a Ball (?)

I cannot find this film title in the syllabus so I'm hoping that title is somewhat correct. I found this film to be very entertaining. Mostly this is because I love dogs, but also because I couldn't tear my eyes away from it (I was almost as concentrated as the dogs). It was so simple, but in a different way that, say, My Parents Read Dreams I have Had About Them was. Like so many other works Carl shows us, I felt that My Parents Read Dreams I have Had About Them is simplified with a bit of sarcasm. I feel like the artist is making it to bend the boundaries of what is considered art (kind of like the urinal-turned sculpture sculpture). Perhaps I am wrong, but I didn't get that vibe from Two Dogs and a Ball. I got more of a "Haha, watch this" feeling.

As far as authorship goes, I felt Two Dogs and a Ball was very distinct. If the film was a story, the man with the ball would clearly be the author, the dogs would be his characters and the ball would be the pen that decided their every move. He has complete control over the dogs, mostly because they are ignorant to the fact that he is teasing them (with the good intention of making the film, of course).

Mirror, Lemon and Semiotics

Monday's films were a little hard for me to swallow. I appreciate each in its own way, but as discussed in discussion, I am having a hard time glorifying them. I appreciate "Mirror" for its playful trickery. A snowy field was the perfect scene for it, I think the same location on a summer day would have made it almost impossible to interpret. It would have been too loud, and lost its purpose. "Lemon" didn't quite have the same appeal as mirror did, but it was interesting to see the highlighted texture of the peel. The effect of lighting positions was interesting. "Semiotics of the Kitchen" was definitely my favorite of Monday's films. I thought it had hilarious attitude and I can maybe buy into the whole stereotypical housewife role -but, to me, that just seems way too easy and cliche.