CTXA 561
Journal
Week 1 - Narrative Structures
This weeks topic was really interesting, because we got to watch a lot of films that had a specific narrative structure to it, which got me interestd, because I got to see films that I generally had not heard of before. I generally realy like watching films with a narrative structure, so i thought this weeks films would be interesting. The 2 films that stood out to me were "The Burden" and "Forever Green"
When I watched The Burden, I was struck by how deceptively gentle it felt. The miniature stop-motion sets, supermarkets, hotels, and office spaces look controlled and almost charming, but the musical numbers reveal a deep exhaustion beneath that surface. The anthropomorphic animal characters sing about routine, burnout, and quiet despair, and what affected me most was the restraint. There’s no dramatic breakdown or rebellion. The sadness is calm, normalized, and cyclical. The slow pacing and soft harmonies made the emotional weight feel heavier. It left me reflecting on how people can exist together in shared commercial spaces yet feel completely alone. Even though this film was amazing to watch, I did feel bit disturbed watching it, as everything in the film was very unexpected, which in a way did give it a charm to it, but the music with the visuals was a bit hard to watch.
In contrast, the film Forever Green felt immersive and constantly transforming. Instead of contained spaces and controlled movements, this film flows organically, with bodies merging into plants and landscapes dissolving into figures. The overwhelming green tones and fluid morphing forms made me feel like identity in this film is unstable and evolving. Where The Burden feels stagnant and cyclical, Forever Green feels alive and in flux. Watching both, I felt like they approach emotional states differently. One through stillness and quiet repetition, and the other through transformation and continuous motion — yet both explore what it means to exist within systems larger than oneself. I personally did enjoy watching Forever Green a lot more, because of the beautiful colors used, and the message of the film was also really powerful.
​
Overall, I did enjoy this weeks discussion on the films a lot. It was interesting to hear what everyone thought of the various films.
Week 2 - Non- Narrative Structures
This weeks discussio was on Non-Narrative structures in animation. I think this was really interesting, because a lot of the films that we saw were really unique, and visually really appealing. What I liked the most about this presentation was the idea of continuum. How abstraction and narrative exist on a spectrum rather than in opposition, that really resonated with me. The idea that categories should serve as a roadmap rather than a constraint shifted how I think about experimental animation. I often feel like I have to choose, either something is narrative or abstract, but based on what was discussed, it reminded me that the two can overlap, blend, and inform each other.
​
I also loved the emphasis on texture, grain, and materiality in the independent animations shown. Especially in the discussion of Blood of the Family Tree. What texture can do emotionally that a “clean” image cannot really stood out to me, because I had never thought of that before. I personally respond strongly to imperfection in animation. Visible paper edges, rubber stamps, and hand-drawn inconsistencies. Those qualities feel human. They feel vulnerable. A polished commercial image can be impressive, but textured imagery feels intimate. It carries the artist’s hand, which makes you connect a lot more with the artist as well.
​
Another part that stayed with me was the idea of Visual Music. Visualizing music as it sounds, and what you think music looks like. That mindset excites me because it frees animation from literal storytelling. It makes rhythm, pacing, repetition, and contrast the main drivers instead of plot. I’m drawn to work where I don’t fully “understand” what’s happening in them, but what I feel in that work. The feeling of being able to experience a certain work, instead of literally understanding everything the work is trying to say is what draws me to non-narrative work.
Week 3 - Documentary and Autobiography
What I liked the most about this week's talk was contemplating the question “If there is no actual footage, can it still be a documentary?” That question immediately unsettled my assumptions. I’ve always associated documentary with camera-based evidence, like real people, real events, proof, real sounds, etc. But this presentation pushed me to reconsider what “real” actually means in film.
​
The metaphorical mode of storytelling resonated with me a lot. In "Our Uniform" and "Teacups", metaphor seems to document structural or social realities rather than literal events. That feels just as important, if not more so.
​
I was especially drawn to what Subjective Mode is as well. The idea that animation can visualize memory, emotion, and psychological reality feels very aligned with the kind of work I’m interested in. In the work "In Ryan", the physical distortions aren’t trying to mimic reality. They’re expressing internal damage. That feels more truthful to me than a clean, realistic live-action interview would. It’s not about surface accuracy; it’s about emotional accuracy. The same applies to Egg. What is being documented there isn’t an event, but a bodily or emotional state. That expands what “documentation” can mean, and this is also something that can only be shown through animation. Animation has the power to bring out inner emotions and memories that can't generally be shown through live-action footage.
​
Overall, I feel like documentary storytelling can be a very powerful tool to tell stories of issues around the world, and animation is the perfect medium to do that, because a lot more can be told through animation, which sometimes could be likely censored, if it's shown in live action.
​
​
Week 4 - Women Creators and themes
What I liked the most about this week's presentation was how clearly it connected form, politics, and technology. It didn’t just talk about women creators historically, but showed how aesthetic strategies themselves become tools of resistance.
The slide that stayed with me early on was the idea that women were historically confined to technical roles like “inking” and “coloring,” with little access to authorship. That framing made the later sections feel even more powerful, especially the shift described from woman as an object to woman as a subject. That line from Paul Wells about women’s animation marking a shift toward subjectivity really resonated with me. The idea that women become narrators of their own experiences, owners of desire, and decision-makers of form feels foundational. It’s not just about representation. It’s about control over representation.
​
The explanation that trauma is fragmented, repetitive, and nonlinear, and that animation can distort bodies and break time, felt incredibly accurate. Animation’s ability to visualize the subconscious makes it uniquely suited to expressing experiences that are otherwise silenced. That idea connects strongly to the idea that visualizing trauma is a prerequisite for subjectivity to emerge. That feels important. Expression itself becomes political.
​
But what I found most intellectually stimulating was the mention of Cyberfeminism and Xenofeminism. The claim that technology is not neutral, but embedded with gendered and racial power structures, reframes digital media as a contested space rather than a neutral tool. Xenofeminism’s idea of “gender abolition”, treating gender as a system of power that can be engineered differently, challenges conventional feminist approaches. I don’t know if I fully agree with abolishing gender entirely, but I appreciate how strategic and structural the thinking is. It’s not just about identity politics.It’s about system redesign and choice.