Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site linus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!tef
From: tef@linus.UUCP (Thomas E. Fawcett)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Koyaanisqatsi
Message-ID: <376@linus.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Sep-83 19:59:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: linus.376
Posted: Thu Sep 29 19:59:53 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Sep-83 20:35:23 EDT
Organization: MITRE Corp., Bedford MA
Lines: 35


   I had a different opinion of Koyaanisqatsi than Morrill.PA.  Although
I agree that the photography was exceptional in general and the sound
track was fairly good, I didn't think that the movie had much
"personality".  For those who haven't seen the film yet, it is formatted
with roughly the first half devoted to scenes of nature and wilderness
(mostly of the American Southwest or California) and roughly the second
half devoted to scenes of modern society, frenetic city life and human
activities, with a fairly graceful transition between the first and
second halves.

   There were several problems with the movie for me.  I found the
camerawork somewhat laborious and unimaginative, and some of the scenes
were dwelled upon too long; the scenes of nature would have made
excellent still photographs but a few were too protracted.  When the
film shifted its focus I found myself fascinated and visually relieved
by the scenes of humans and cars scurrying about - I don't think this is
the effect Coppola intended!

   I think the main flaw, however, is that the film isn't "personal"
enough - the camera is always a detached observer, and the events and
scenes have no emotion to them at all.  The effect is like that of
watching an ant farm - it's interesting for awhile but in the end you
don't really care.  I've seen films with less impeccable photography
which successfully make the point that Koyaanisqatsi tries to make,
because they manage to get the viewer involved. One could argue that
Coppola was merely trying to examine rather than judge, but that seems
unlikely given the meaning of the title alone.

   My bottom-line single-figure monetary artistic judgement:  It's worth
about $2 to $3 to see; probably not the $4.25 asked by most 'art'
theaters around Boston.

Tom Fawcett
MITRE Corp.