Screenings_Seen_Monday_April_28th

[I mentioned that "Duck Soup" offered interventions into narrative. How so? Or, consider this: if a narrative offers a logical sequence of incidents that take us from originary point A to concluding point B (A -> B), can we consider "Duck Soup" a narrative? What of "The Way Things Go"? For your blog, discuss how or if the two films are related, similar. Is "Duck Soup" more than a sum of its series of gags? Is "The Way Things Go" more than it series of stunts? How are they or are they not narrative? What can we say these films are about, using Frampton's formula or otherwise?]

I think that the film "Duck Soup" can be considered as a narrative. It is logical for humans to try and find distinctions between what it real, and what is not. Through this process, we
discover the "order of events" or the way actions are taking place. As our minds bind this data together, we resolve, that even if there is no distinct story line that there is a purpose and a final destination which must be reached. Therefore, combining humor and a quick-witted script along with seemingly random actions (as in "Duck Soup") leads to the understanding that this "play" on words as well as actions is what this film has set out to accomplish and has successfully done so.
"The Way Things Go" is considerably more difficult to establish as a narrative because of the state in which it is displayed. I make this statement because the display of events are not necessarily logical...yet, they are. To explain, the main theme of the film is based off of Newton's Third Law which states that "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Simply, when the momentum of a tire comes in contact with another tire and causes it to move, the principle is performed and it is considered logical. Furthermore, a chemical reaction that takes place within a "foamy substance" which causes a balloon to begin to be expanded and then it gets large enough to contact another object and cause it to move is also an example of this principle. What I have trouble grasping however, is that even though there is this definite logic being displayed through principle, the progression of events cannot be entirely viewed that way. There goal, in my mind is vague. It seems as though the film displays the result of the successful experimentation which occurred prior to the making of the film and not an actual "A - B" progression which would lead to an end. In other words, different objects strike each other in an effort to maintain a constant state of motion, but it is impossible to interpret what comes next within the sequence of events. How then can it be considered a narrative?