I recently had the misfortune of seeing Koyaanisqatsi for the second time. Note that I said “seeing” and not “watching,” because I only witnessed other people sitting there enthralled by it - I did not sit there, as I had the first time, and pretend to be interested. I hadn’t realized it fully the first time, but man, this movie is a pretentious, silly, repetitive and boring piece of cinema. I know a lot of people really dig it, the way the music and the movement go together, but I just really have to call bullshit on this.
First of all, I hate Phillip Glass’s “music.” It all sounds like the same repeated arpeggios over and over again to me. I don’t mind interesting and complex lines, but I do mind it when they’re looped over and over again in the same predictable “two bars of this, two bars of that, repeat” format.
Second of all, while I can appreciate the cinematography, I can’t just watch a movie of interesting shots set to the musical drivel I just mentioned. I need dialog and plots and characters and all that. I know that Koyaanisqatsi is supposedly important because it is the first movie of this kind, but I fail to see how it is possible to watch this thing for its 87 minutes of running time and be entertained. Or “moved.” Or “interested.”
I just don’t get it. The music is interesting, for about sixty seconds. The shots are interesting, but I can’t watch 87 minutes of just shots. What the hell makes Koyaanisqatsi so great?
I disliked it immediately because the title was “Koyaanisqatsi” instead of just “Dying Earth”. 50% less pretension, 100% more coherence. Pfeh. We watched it in biology on our last day of school, but I don’t remember much about it since it was the last day and nobody was really watching. Though I do remember some “information” about bananas that annoyed me greatly. Perhaps someone can jog my memory?
It’s a great soporific. I really like Phillip Glass’s music, but I find the visuals he offers alongside it pretty uncompelling, for the most part. Koyblahblahscatsi is a great example, but the best was his 3D “opera” I went to see several years ago.
Paid thirty bucks to get in, and it was the most pretentious bit of incompetent 3D animation I’ve ever seen in my life. Hilariously awful, but not thirty bucks of hilarity.
Well, I thought it was a fine film (not as thrilled with the others). The issue is simply that so many of the techniques have been coopted by others that you don’t realize how groundbreaking it once was. At the time it came out, most of the shots had never been seen before – now, they’re everywhere.
For those who didn’t like it, well, sorry you didn’t like it. If it’s not your cup of tea, try a different cup.
I think the film is a masterpiece personally, though the images and techniques certainly seem dated today. It is also one of Glass’s greatest compositions. A major problem with him is that he recycles so much of his material for one recording after another with different instrumentation and arrangements that he’s got tons of CDs out there of nothing new. But this is one that stands out for me, along with about 3 or 4 other recordings.
There’s a lot more going on in his music than looped arpeggios. In the case of this movie there’s a larger formal structure at work in each of the pieces. The harmonic material undergoes a process of increased rhythmic complexity from one section to the next within each chapter, building to a peak at the end of the chapter. For me this has the effect of strengthening the impact of the chapter as a whole.
I agree this music is not for everyone. I know many very musical people who need their music to constantly be changing to keep their interest. I personally find repetition to be very musical. I’ve actually sat and listened to a CD skipping for over an hour :eek:
I found it near-intolerable. And not because of the cinematography (which was beautiful and at times breathtaking), nor because of the music (which I found perfectly suited to the material).
“Koyanisqaatsi,” we are told, means “life out of balance.” The message of the film is pretty clear: “Mankind is screwing up nature.” The shots begin with"unspoiled" natural grandeur and then increasingly give over to scenes of man’s destruction of same: urban shittiness, skyscrapers, clouds of smoke billowing out of factories, etc.
The problems:
(1) The message is hypersimplified to the point of inanity. “Nature good, man bad” is about as deep as it goes. Or maybe “civilization bad” is a better interpretation.
(2) The film isn’t actually serving its message: The shots of Evil Mankind stuff are just as beautiful as the shots of canyons and such.
(3) The premise is that the change from natural perfection to polluted shithole has happened over time; the film suggests that it’s been an accelerated change that occurred mostly on a geologic time scale.
The problem with this: The film was all shot at the same time. In other words, the unspoiled natural grandeur seen in the film, and the urban shittiness seen in the film, exist contemporaneously. This does not seem, to me, to be “life out of balance.” The premise that the world is out of balance is belied by the existence of the film istelf; they had to shoot all of it somewhere.
(4) Finally, any argument for a return to a natural, Edenic state loses much of its oomph when it’s made via the most expensive, unnatural artistic medium ever invented.
Gotta admit, though, that the closing five-minute shot of the rocket was totally brilliant.
Personally, I hated the music. The second time I watched it, we put the TV on mute and played a mix tape someone had made with music from Jimi Hendrix, The Who, The Beatles, Cream, etc. etc. That made it much more enjoyable. I really enjoy the visuals of this movie.
Yeah, I’d have to agree with most of this. I may love the film as a piece of art, but that doesn’t mean I agree with the message. Truth is, Reggio (the director) is kinda loony.
Just speaking to your #4, I can’t help but feel a certain degree of cognitive dissonance whenever anyone uses a technological medium to denounce technology.
I don’t exactly agree with your #2, depending on what you mean by “beautiful”. Yes the evil mankind shots were quite beautiful, but still pretty ugly. They produced quite a different response in me then the peaceful nature shots, though from an aesthetic POV I might characterize them both as “beautiful”.
There are three movies in this series: Koyaanisqatsi, Powaqqatsi, and Nagoyqatsi.
They’re just pretty to look at, and you get to infer your own meaning by what you are shown.
You could turn down the volume and listen to some atonal music instead, perhaps by Schoenberg or something instead. Not to poo on Glass, but he really is sort of like a one-liner, and once you’ve heard about 3 minutes of him, that’s all you’ll ever need.
I suggest the Glass-free Baraka instead of the Qatsi movies. But, you know, if you don’t like movies without characters and plots and storylines, my suggestion is irrelevant.
I just saw this movie a few months ago. When it came on Sundance while I was watching my nieces I tortured them for about 30 minutes by watching the last part of the movie. Mwa ha ha ha, fight while I’m watching you? Take that!
I actually enjoy the movie quite a bit and though I wouldn’t listen to Glass’ music just for fun it did fit the movie like a glove. I thought the cinematography was excellent and even the ugly images of ghettos (Chicago I thought), microchips, and an exploding rocket were just great. I was a little confused over the life out of balance theme because I thought several shots of the city weren’t just shot beautifully but were beautiful. For example the sunset reflecting off the glass buildings and the transition to night with all the pretty lights. If the message was life out of balance then the film certainly failed for me.
Well, there is probably more focus in the film on the manufacturing of the automobile than any other technological development. It would seem odd to use mass-produced (presumably) video equipment to deride mass-produced cars (one of the most beneficial technological developments in the history of our society).
But Reggio is odd. I heard a few interviews with him promoting the release of Naqoyqatsi a couple of years ago. His perspective on what’s wrong with the world just isn’t all that coherent or consistent.