I was thinking about how Dr. Campbell noted that Vernon, Florida is Morris’ purest epistemological movie and I support this completely because Vernon, Florida doesn’t pretend to be about anything, unlike Gates of Heaven which at least as the premise on the very surface of being a film about pet cemeteries. This lack of any semblance of plot I think makes Vernon, Florida either the best Morris movie or the worse Morris movie depending on your perspective. Those who are enthralled by the metaphysical questions that Morris’ films pose love Vernon, Florida…and those who think that Vernon, Florida is a just a lot of old people rambling with no purpose whatsoever will hate it.

Vernon, Florida gives us a window to the basic human desire for the meaning of life. The people in the film are ordinary, blue-collar people who are searching for answers in an incomprehensible world. There are a few answers which are given. The turkey-hunter as found meaning in his life through turkey hunting. Much like Danny in Gates of Heaven, he as turned turkey hunting into an art form, and become obsessed with it. This obsession gives him meaning (even if it is an illusion, but this still doesn’t matter as long as its not an illusion to him.) Another answer is through God with the man in boat where he states that nothing happens by coincidence. The last is through experience where the farmer says the his knowledge of “wigglers” doesn’t come from a book, but from experience.

However, at some point during the movie Morris provides a counterexample for all of these answers. Religion (as well as scholasticism) is mocked during the sermon scene, particularly when all of the church-goers are shown in the foreground looking highly disinterested. The man turkey hunting is constantly being fooled by the sound all the buzzards make. And the “wiggler” farmer even admits his mistake when talking about the night-crawlers, saying that he left them there over night and they all crawled away.

I think it’s important that Vernon, Florida raises these questions and then offers answers, and then questions those answers. It would be interesting to know how much of Morris’ mentality (being beat up after trying to film Nub City) affected the nihilism present in this film?

Although I have seen the film only once I’m going to give my idea of the structure in Gates of Heaven. Based on the discussion we had in class, we identify the speech by Florence Rasmussen as the middle or hinge of the movie. Dr. Campbell pointed out the first word of the movie is inspiration and the last is hope.

I see the structure of the film almost as a “V” in one sense. It begins with the obsession of one man in building a pet cemetary. This is the purpose of his life. It ends with the obsession of music in Danny (the younger brother). Playing music out of his 100-watt amplifier to hundreds of dead pets is the meaning in his life. Music is his dream, his obsession, what he latches on to. Much how the man in the wheelchair was obsessed with creating a pet cemetary, and he made that the purpose of his life.

Those two instances would be the tops of the “V”, then throughout the first half of the film the dream deteriotes until the point the cemetary must close. This leads us to the speech by Florence Rasmussen which chronologically and thematically connects the two parts. The second half of the film begins with Calvin explaining the business of the pet cemetary, how he thought it was necessary to take on these 400 misplaced pets out of the benefit of the business. As the film progresses, we move from a description of a business to the dreams of a young man and how that fits into the business he is working in. The movie then comes full circle and shows how the meaning of life can be described by ones hope, inspirations, and dreams.

I wanted to talk about something I noticed during the “hinge” portion of Gates of Heaven. The “hinge” portion (for those unsure) is the part where Florence Rasmussen (I believe that was her name, she was wearing the ridiculous pink apron…I know that can’t be forgotten) is giving a speech on the pet cemetary and then her son. I noticed that during the speech I could see the reflection of the camera crew in her eyeglasses. I didn’t notice it until she looked to her left while she was talking. Once that happened, it kind of took me out of the movie a little but and realized there was a production taking place. It was almost a disturbing dichotomy, because I could clearly see a man wearing green polo shirt. I would like to watch the scene much more closely to see if I’m completely accurate.

Regardless, it made me think about how much of the movie was staged (set, dialogue, otherwise), how much conversation had to be initiated to get these people to talk for such a long time without interruption. I think I found the image of the man in her eyeglasses a little jarring because you’re not supposed to see him, your not supposed to see anything outside these “characters” any provocation whatsoever. And there it was.

Here are some initial thoughts on Gates of Heaven:

-Brilliant
This movie seems on the outside to be a boring documentary with a lot of senior citizens talking about their dead pets. However, I believe this is one of the densest film I’ve ever viewed. I think I need to watch it again just to begin to understand the mulitude of issues it brings up: brother-brother relationships, love relationships (pets, people, family), how we treat the senior citizens in our culture, how we treat our pets, the ethicality of business, what we obsess about (1. pets, 2. music, 3. love, 4. pet cemetary, etc. etc.)

-Shots
Some of the backgrounds in this movie were amazing. The cactus one in particular comes to mind. I thought the opening shot was great too, the old man in a wheel-chair framed by the huge, vibrant green tree. I thought it somewhat interesting that the men speaking about business practices were shot at different angles then most others. There was one man in yellow shirt where the camera was almost looking up at him, and the rendering businessman, and the man in the red shirt were both filmed slightly form the side. They were never straight on, which led me to believe the filmmakers did not believe business to be “straight-on” or honest.

-Origin of the film
Aftering doing some research I learned that the film was created as the resuly of bet between the director, Erol Morris, and filmmaker Werner Herzog (of Grizzly Man fame), that if he made a movie about pet cemetaries then Herzog would eat his shoe. This lead to the documentary “Werner Herzog Eat His Shoe.” I couldn’t find a clip of this anywhere, so if anyone knows where I can find it let me know.

I think it would be naive to say that this was the sole, or even a main reason to make this movie. I’m sure Morris had the idea far before he made the bet with Herzog. I would be very interested to learn the true intentions Morris had for created such a film.

Many philosophers have grappled with the question of whether or not art can be judged objectively. If you take the view that beauty is solely in the eye of the beholder, then a film critique by a 4-year old is just as valid as that of Ebert. However, this is not a view held by many. People give much more merit to the a review done by Ebert then one done by a child.

So how does one become an authoritative figure in regards to evaluating art?

In Hume’s Taste and the Arts he offers five things that must come together: “Strong sense, united to delicate sentiment, improved by practice, perfected by comparison, and cleared of all prejudice.” He ultimately concludes that very few people will ever attain these five factors, so there will be very few qualifed judges of art. However, Hume’s statement does give us a start on how we can begin to evaluate art.

A problem does exist whenever critiquing art, it almost always becomes circular. Do great critics define great art? Or does great art define great critics?

It seem so obvious one cannot exist without the other, and I think it would be pointless to try to figure out which comes first. It seems more apparent that one will come first which will build on another, and over time both art and the critic will be revered as great mainly due to the test of time and/or passing over cross/cultural boundaries. It is similar to how we discussed in class that over time films that initially received little acclaim begin to be revisted once certain critics begin to point out brilliant shots or subtle acting that was once glossed over. The film slowly begins to be regarded as good or great film, and the critics who pointed out these attributes gain more and more merit (for lack of a better phrase.)