When one combines a succession of pictures, they create the illusion of movement- a moving picture, or film. By this logic, one can argue that the truly constant subject of any film is time. Interestingly, the stills featured in the article, a slice of time, taken from their original films, emphasises this idea, especially when observing the ‘slices’ from ‘Empire’ by Andy Warhol. Since realistically almost no one dedicates eight continuous hours to watching the same movie- nonetheless one of the ‘life’ of a building (maybe why it is described as “famous but little-seen”(Bruno, 2004)), is it possible that the significance of this reel time film not only lies in the subtle differences captured in real time, but the fact that it is eight hours long? By creating this chunk of time, it is certainly interesting how utilising space and time can challenge what constitutes as film- when space and time are precisely what films capture.
— Chung, Wing Sze Cecilia (3035742487)
Andy Warhol’s “Empire” is definitely not an everyday film. It was produced as a critique, “… anticipated recent trends in art installation, foreseeing even the shape that the projection of moving images has taken today” (p.93). Your concluding remark also resonates with Bruno’s take on how “… moving images have thus come to “architect” the very mood of inner life – a landscape of temps mort, a geology of passage” (p.94). In a modern world where everything seems to be on the move in a fast lane, to sit and watch to appreciate Warhol 8-hours long film is a luxury, but it was what Bruno refers to as “… a radical refashioning of a politics of time” (p,94).