Talk:Naqoyqatsi

message: What a horrendous disappointment.
Mr. Reggio from Green Anarchy #12, Spring 2003, by SK:
"The third film, conceived early on as well, dealt with the globalized moment in which we live. How the world is being homogenized, how unity is being held together by the new divine, the computer. The new divine is the manufactured image, which is the subject of Naqoyqatsi and hence, the necessity of using digital technology to create it. In the case of Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi, we went to real locations to film them. In the case of Naqoyqatsi, we went to virtual locations to film them. We took stock and archival images that venerated familiar those things we have all grown up with through the myth of history, and we've taken and revivified them, or tortured them with a computer to create a manufactured image which is, as Baudrillard would call, the evil demon of image. The purpose of image is to produce this monstrous, demonic conformity. Right now, image is more important than truth or reality. Look at the political spectrum, it's all about the image of something. So this third film deals squarely with the image as its principal subject matter, the manufactured image in the globalization of the world."
Insightful, yet unfulfilling.
A case could be made that outdated sequences is a commentary on accelerated obsolescence; however the series set a standard in visual brilliance and melodic pacing... something that is noticeably lacking in the last film. If it was meant to be soulless then it succeeded, but artificiality needn't be soulless since its interacting with souls.
This narrative could have taken three chapters of the film... not a seemingly pointless, repetitive and at times confusing distortion of images for the entire thing. In the first films I could derive my own meaning, narratives then listen to Reggio, gain more insight... watch them again with new eyes and still derive new/different meaning from it on my own.
From Naqoyqatsi I see boring self-indulgence*... understanding what the narrative is supposed to be doesn't change that.
*Disclaimer: In comparison to the rest of the Qatsi series.
You want to show globalization?
Go to New York, then Tokyo and how the people and the advertising.
Want to show computer/equations bringing it together, dump or at the very least overlay (intersplice) the CGI stuff and show people interacting with computers; show economic contagion as it takes over Asia and creates riots (war).
Show people fighting globalization and conformity; trying to fight the homogeny... to have an effective story you need to show the entire story.
Show corrupt elites with their shiny technology,
as many workers continue to toil for a manufactured (advertised) dream.
The concept of tortured distorted (demonic) globalized reality controlled through technology is pretty good, but the delivery was very very bad.
Chapters could have been combined, tightly edited such as:
religion + media weather = Religious Media
Show quickly and unambiguously the use of historical figures for political gain, the manipulation and overexposure of weather (natural disasters) in the media in relation to religious rapture predictions.
New World + Old World = Collision of World's
Show Europe, Saudi Arabia even Asia with beautiful images and
changing regional music themes of the old and new.
Just needed to vent, apologies.
- RoyBoy [∞] 06:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtual Cinema = Virtual Crap 

message: Who deleted my info about the first chapter and why? --BlooWilt 00:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: What is this 'Tower of Battle'? There doesn't seem to be any such thing in any Bible. There's the 'Tower of Babel'. Correct me if I'm missing something, here. Kutera Genesis 00:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tower of Battle? 

message: This reads horrendously... can anyone that's seen the movie rewrite it? Or do we really need it? I already removed unsourced comments (which I assume therefore to be original research). Iansmcl (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synposis 

message: The stretching of virtually the entire 4:3 film to wide screen for the DVD release looks horrible. Everything is squashed and distorted, all circles become elipses, etc. I'm sure there's been "some controversy" about this, as the article states, but is there any source available that tells us how the makers feel about this decision? Was it their idea? Or did some studio nitwit decided it had to be done to accomodate wide screen TVs? I can't find any info on this weird decision. (A similar thing happened with Koyaanisqatsi which was shot and shown in cinemas in 4:3 and then matted to 16:9 for DVD. Didn't do it much good either.) What's all this about? FCTS 142 (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  4:3 film vs 16:9 DVD