Girl Chewing Gum

I was asked by someone earlier to put a couple of extra blog entries in to separate discussion of the films. The comments sections below are getting a bit unwieldy, so that’s maybe not a bad idea.

There are one or two interesting bits online about this film and its director, John Smith, if you’re interested in doing a search.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Girl Chewing Gum

  1. Mr Heald says:

    The following was posted by David & Fred in a different thread, so I’ve copied it in here:

    the girl with the chewing gum, what in its most basic terms could be considered as a random assortment of clips to create a short and humerous piece of cinema. The voiceover who turns the most trivial and basic human movements and gives and them a cominic spin, he uses there movements to create mild jokes pointing out often things that in most films would never even be considered anout or put to thought as it were.
    with there being no clear plot line, the viewer is forced to use there own ideas and experience or interpretations to bring some order to this sequence.
    This film brings up some concepts which are usually ignored,camera movements for one,at one point the voice over jokes “now i want the floor to sink down and stop at the clock……” he also adds humour to the concept of actors or the films particepents “now i want th3e two boys, two pigeons and the man to move acroos the road while the car……..” which seems to get a mild laugh from and audience.
    The video twists the idea of perception in films and camera shots and angles in realtion to movements of the protagonist.

  2. Philippa says:

    Personally, i thought this film was really good because it was out of the ordinary and, for once, it’s a film which makes me think whereas most other films show you what you are supposed to think rather than letting you work out for yourself!
    Also, I thought the film became even funnier as the film went on as the speaker tried to make more and more obvious that the speech was not actually recorded at the same time as the film. It ended up with the person saying something (for example – “A man in a duffle coat walks on from the right”) and not until five minutes later does this actually happen!

  3. Tom says:

    ‘for once, it’s a film which makes me think whereas most other films show you what you are supposed to think rather than letting you work out for yourself’

    Doesn’t Glosoli do this as well Phillipa?

  4. Philippa says:

    No, not really because Glosoli has a kind of story line to it, therefore it doesn’t really make you think for yourself, it shows you what you are meant to think happens. Does that make sense, Tom?? PS, you spelt my name wrong…again!

  5. Tom says:

    Yes i realise what you mean now, that there is no concrete story line…. philippa*

  6. Philippa says:

    Yay!! Thats exactly what i meant!

  7. Jen says:

    I agree with Philippa to some extent because the film can be interpereted in many ways – is it the director speaking, or has it just been recorded over etc… and the fact that there is not concrete storyline. Also it makes it fascinating because for the whole 15 minutes or so, everyone was watching at the edge of their seats to see what would happen to do with a plot; it was extremely clever to keep everyone so interested for that period of time to result in an anticlimax!

  8. Philippa says:

    I agree with Jenny!! Except the film’s 12 mins, not 15, but who’s counting!!

  9. AJ and fred says:

    i disagree with phillipa lots of films make you think just because it has a basic storyline doesnt mean you dont have to think. people can still be excited and curious from a concrete story line also no film tells you what to think they simply show you a few scenes which you are supposed to derive meaning and then figure out your own interpretations of the events

  10. Emmanuel says:

    I loved this video! I thought it was a genius idea to have a big built up…but then an climax. at first I thought it was just a series of random everyday events, however as the narrator wanted things like birds flying from certain directions from the screen, it became more obvious that he wasnt actually narrating the film. it became even MORE obvious when he began directing the clock! which i found very funny. later on in the film i think that he started to build up the viewers attention again, after all the random events, by saying that a man had just robbed a post office. But then just leads it to nothing… you could not of possibly knew that the man had just robbed a post office unless the director told you so. To ME it shows that you realy cannot jugde a book by its cover. what you think is just a normal man walking down the street, could’ve just robbed a bank!!!!

  11. roachy says:

    I believe the film is extremely difficult to interpret because there is no sound related to the film. In most films, especially horror films the sound defines the film. If you ever try watching a horror film on you own in the dark but with sound off it does not seem extremely scary or horrifying. I watched a part of “the grudge 2” at the weekend without sound and that was when I really realised that the sound defines the film, and even more so in a more abstract piece such as “the girl chewing gum”. Without sound the viewer cannot make complete sense of the film. A person cannot depict the world around them very well if deprived of hearing, and ths is even more apparent in a film where the camera moves, cuts and in general the flow of time is extremely distorted. If wathcing a film such as “the girl chewing gum”, where the sound is not relative to the true events and the only constant would have been the sound, the distortion in the viewers mid is more apparent.

    It will be more difficult to assess what is truly happening in the film because the strange soundtrack is accompanied by a constant and annoying ringing which distracts the viewer and they are therefore paying less attenion to the film and more to the sound, which in my opinion is not vital for interpreting what is going on in the film but is more about what the film is about and why it is filmed in such a way.

    Actively watching the film I have noticed that the behavior of the people directed by the director of the soundtrack is slightly odd at times. At the beginning there is a lag between what the supposed “director” commands and what truly happens, though it is noticable that everything happens in unison with precise synchronisation to the words of the director. it therefore appears in this part of the film that the director does not conciously tell the people waht to do, but rather commands them subconsiously so that they then do it without considering or thinking about it. However, towards the middle as the camera turns towards the cinema there first becomes a lag from the command to the action, but the actions are still prefectly carried out. It then seems to gradually become apparent that either the director is losing control or it was acting because timings gradually slip, the lags grow and mistakes are made, but this all occurs after the cinema piece, which is towards the middle of the film and is probably the most difficult part of the film to interpret in terms of waht aspects relate and which don’t, and how the event fit together.

  12. Lisa says:

    I agree with Tom, Jenny and Philippa. The fact that there is no plot may either bore people or fascinate them. It may also annoy them because they would be waiting for a meaning to ressolve ideas they had in their head at the time to do with the Girl Chewing Gum.

  13. Joe Martin says:

    i fully agree with aj n freddy tht some films make u think and the storylines makes you do this.

  14. roachy says:

    The film has a direct plot, but the viewer is made to think that they are watching a rnadomnly shosen series of events with no sturcture. However, I have remembered that all films are carefully produced, directed and edited from precise, sinlge concept. A reason why this piece of cinema is probably thought of in this way is that it looks like just a background shot with the director calling the shots and no particular idea to the story, whereas the true plot is exactly what is being ignored: the constant setting with the directors voice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s