"T,O,U,C,H,I,N,G" is recognized as one of the most important structuralist films ever made, and as such also Paul Sharits's best-known short. At twelve minutes, it manages to be extremely effective for such a short run-time, and significantly different from the filmmaker's other shorts ("N:O:T:H:I:N:G", "Epileptic Seizure Comparison") in one aspect: the audio. Many of these so-called flicker films, particularly Sharits's additions to the Flux Film series, were in lack of using a soundtrack significantly to such an important extent. "Epileptic Seizure Comparison" used sound to as part of the general experience in building atmosphere; "N:O:T:H:I:N:G" barely had any at all and relied more on the strobe component. But in this film, it is used for an even more significant purpose: to add an additional intensity to the experience, and as such make the film powerful in both aspects.
The premise of "T,O,U,C,H,I,N,G" is similar to that of N:O:T:H:I:N:G" in that both utilize animation combined with flickering color frames. The main difference here is that there is more in the way of imagery and fewer color frames. However, only a few different shots are featured as they are flickered with said frames: a man (poet David Franks) with a scissors surrounding his tongue, the same man's face being brutally scratched, and two other indiscernible images. The images of the man are animated in a very rough manner, and switch between positive and negative prints to create an even more intense experience. Overlay the word "destroy" repeated over and over again quickly and a beating sound effect on top of that, and you've got the film.
So what's so special about the aspect of having sound used this way? Simple answer: when the same word is repeated so quickly and consistently, it is hard for the viewer to know what is being said. Everyone hears different things; I knew the word was "destroy" before watching it, but even so my mind sometimes wanted to interpret it as being "this girl". The flicker effect, as always, is stroboscopic to the point where anyone with epilepsy is not advised to watch this, and it becomes even worse when the images switch between positive and negative. As a whole, the filmmaker is clearly toying with the viewer's senses, and in both aspects of video and sound he does this remarkably. An especially significant piece in the structuralist movement; certainly among Paul Sharits's greatest films, not to mention his most intense.
