I've been struggling with the question recently: What is Optika?
Of course I know, and have known since the beginning of the semester that it is a collection of six animated mini-films about life, death, color and art of six different planets, utilizing 6 different animation techniques.
But how do I classify Optika? In the beginning I felt like it was a visual poem -- something meant to be experienced, not intellectually consumed. I've felt a tug since the beginning, between making a film which is intelligent and making a film which is beautiful. Is one inherently better than the other? Is one more important?
Andre seems to believe that the film must be intelligent before it should be beautiful, but do I agree with that?
I've pondered with the idea of taking these abstract films and diving intellectually into them and into my own psyche, but does that betray the original concept? The purity of the animated sequences? What if I made the film a novel, a research paper, a work of prose? Is that pretentious? Is that pointless?
Where I've arrived is that I want for it to be a collection of miniature films to be appreciated together (as a set) with a soundtrack evoking their contents. Is there an order to the films? Should there be an order to the films?
What if I made a program, which would randomly generate any of 30 different orders for the film to be played in? Random quotes?
What if the film was an installation? A dark closet with 6 screens mounted on walls and quotes being projected from the ceiling down on you. The music plays as the films play (in sync) on an endless loop.
The film can be any of these things, but it can also be a lot more. It could be a beautifully choreographed symphony or an improvisational back-and-forth.
What would be best for the film? Is it all of these films? Is it none of them?
