Powaqqatsi

Koyaanisqatsi, which is Powaq's predecessor and successor, is my all-time favorite film. It has the beautiful cinematography of Ron Fricke and Godfrey Reggio with the wonderfully-timed score of Philip Glass merged into an emotion-evoking, powerfully mindblowing cinematic experience, after which the viewer feels weak. But watching this, I appreciated the wonderful cinematography and the--ahem--interesting music, but it evoked no emotions inside me, and I felt I hadn't learned anything from it except the things we see in those "You, too, can sponsor a child" television ads. It's quite an experience, and I don't wholly denounce it or condemn it, but I wouldn't expect another Koyaanisqatsi. I hope Naqoyqatsi has "packs the same emotional wallop" of the original.

This is a superb second film of a once planned trilogy that began with Koyaanisqatsi. While the first had effects that might be likened to video-game razzle-dazzle, and was entertaining in its own right, Powaqqatsi is a celebration of humanity and does not repeat the earlier images. Perhaps some were disappointed by this, but this film stands finely on its own terms. A moving and delightfully photographed tour of the world. I have often wondered what became of the third leg of these efforts.

My first impression agreed with the post above but it grows on you. Here are some reasons why.

Koyaanisqatsi was made by Americans, about America, for Americans.

The image style and content and the soundtrack (turn it up, even better by the 1998 rerecorded soundtrack and turn it up) are all familiar to American eyes and ears.

Poyaanisqatsi was made by a mixed team of nationalities about the countries of the Southern hemisphere. It goes places where we do not usually go, we face the unfamiliar. The soundtrack does the same thing. It uses rhythmical and melodic styles from the countries visited, once again unfamiliar to our American eyes and ears.

I enjoy Koyaanisqatsi for the awesome imagery including time scale effects a nd the unusual view it presents to us of what we live in everyday.

Both movies use picture with music but no words. The creators intended it to carry a message but left it to the viewer to create it. Here's a single example from the opening of K.

The visual shows the beginning of man's journey from Earth to moon, and the camera is put where we can see the rocket engines come to life close up. The soundtrack is completely contrary to the obvious visual idea. Instead of trumpet fanfares and explosions of sound we strain to hear deep solo voices chanting the title of the movie over and over as the dramatic rocket launch visual is slowed down so that 3 seconds ocupies 3 minutes. The result is a strange contrast between sound and vision which stands apart from conventional ideas. AS the rocket trembles in a shower of ice we are invited to ponder all the meanings that this event might possess and the space and time provided for our imagination to operate inside encourage the same contrary thoughts. The time distortion means that we no longer experience the explosive impulse created by man's mastery of metal, electricity and chemicals and let loose in a mighty roar when the clock counts ZERO.

Here there is no clock, the deep voice marks the passage of time and the picture we see is of some machine never seen before that can rise gently up into the air to the sound of chanting.

Poyaanisqatsi explores the more ancient ways still existing, outdoor manual labor rather than factories, seasonal activities, self sufficiency by sailing, fishing, digging, plowing, reaping and grinding the crop on small scales.

Less time is given over to time compression which was a strong feature of Koy'si. More time is given to time expansion, slow-motion cinematography and multiple exposure process. We spend time with the camera close up with people, individuality begins to become important as we are able to disriminate groups and individuals within groups.

The second half of 'P'begins to include material that may have a direct distressing affect on the viewer, perhaps only an uncomfortable feeling at first, which in my experience with repeated viewing, becomes stronger. There are a handful of moving images that for me have become outright disturbing, and more so each time I see them. There is sense of something dreadfully wrong going on, that we know about but are helpless and unable to name it and abolish it.

If anything the soundtrack of 'P' is superior to 'K' but again upon repeated listening. There is a piece of singing (at about 80 mins) that is in Muslim religious style and which blew my socks off with the combination of vocal strength and clarity, subtlety of melody, subtlety of rythmyic phrasing and powerful capability to attract attention.

I have no hesitation recommending 'K' to anyone including children. 'P' is more difficult, by the end you have seen some uncomfortable truths about the poor quality of life affecting a large proportion of the world population. How comfortable can we be on our sofas watching this tale be told to us?

This film is, according to its director, a look at a "global culture"; a visual assessment of the response of the "third world" to the force of globalization and the pressure to modernize. He says there are both good points and bad points to be observed, and hopes to portray the creativity and industriousness with which people around the world respond to the demands of their environments.

I do not see this. I see a moving, and beautiful film, but not about this. I see the destructive effects of the ever-increasing commodification of nature, life, and labor, on people as they are forced to abandon their homes and livelihoods to nationalist projects and capital ventures. I see (to use Karl Polanyi's words) the uprooting of peoples and places, and the destructive forces of market enterprise disguised under tropes of progress and modernity.

Yes. Human beings are creative and industrious, and have dealt with these problems in unique and fascinating ways. But, rather than simply celebrating the Beauty of Human Life, in all it's glory, let this film be a call to recognize this beauty, and recognize its value as intrinsic, as part and parcel to the livelihoods of the people it is embodied within.

Koyannisqatsi wasn't a copy of anything, so why would anyone expect Powaqqatsi to be a copy of it? Fortunately, I saw this film on the big screen without seeing its predecessor, and I was delighted. The movie begins with a shot of an African diamond mine. You see a miner ascending a ladder in slow-motion, carrying a bag of mud on shoulders, accompanied by a heavy, pounding music. The effects and the music work together to highlight the miner's tiredness and strain. Other images follow, most of them from the "third world." In each case the focus is not a thing, but a quality.

Powaqqatsi revolutionized my concept of the world -- Go ahead and laugh! The film shows a vastness and variety and energy in the world that was beyond anything I could have imagined when I went into the theater. Everything is presented for what it is; there's no Western narrator to reassure you and tell you what everything means. There is perhaps no higher praise for a film than saying it changed the way I think, and Powaqqatsi deserves that praise.