Synchromy No. 2: Watching the music, sort of

Should you watch this?

If you like abstract art or old-school experimental film, yeah, give it a go. It’s only a few minutes long. But if you need a plot or characters, keep walking. You’ll probably hate it if you get bored by stuff that doesn't have a clear point.

So, the whole thing starts with this promise: an attempt to see sound. That’s a bold claim for a bunch of paper clips and light, right? But honestly? It kind of works in a trippy, old-timey way.

The way the light hits those paper clips—it’s weirdly hypnotic. You can tell they were just playing around in the studio, maybe having a few drinks while moving jars and rings around. It feels imperfect and messy, which is exactly why I like it.

There’s this one bit where a statue of a woman just pops in out of nowhere. It feels like a mistake, like someone bumped the camera or forgot to clear the frame. It’s jarring, but in a way that keeps you awake.

When you watch this, you start thinking about how we consume media today. Everything is so polished and CGI-heavy now. This film? It feels like it was made by human hands, maybe a little dusty and definitely not trying to impress a studio executive.

Comparing this to something like The Secret 6 feels totally wrong, like comparing a jazz solo to a tax audit. It’s just apples and oranges, really.

The kaleidoscope effects are cool, I guess. Though they remind me a bit too much of the stuff that plays on the back of old DVD players. Still, it’s a vibe.

Quick notes from the dark:

• The music is Wagner, which is a lot to take for such short visuals.
• The lily at the end feels like a random "okay, we're done now" moment.
• I spent way too long trying to figure out which jar they used for the refraction shots.
• It feels like an acid trip, if you’re into that sort of thing. 🌀

It’s not a masterpiece, and it doesn't need to be. It’s just a weird little experiment that someone decided to film. And honestly, that’s enough.