Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

[ptmd]

I haven't heard the radio broadcasts, but they sound quite interesting. There's a wonderful anthology of Brakhage's late writings called Telling Time that includes a number of essays on music, literature, and the other arts that he originally wrote for a magazine in Canada. It's in print and well worth tracking down.

[vogler]

I'll definitely look into getting a copy of Telling Time. It sounds like an essential read for me.

I have a slightly strange question for Mr_sausage - "artform" or "art form"? I prefer "artform" and that's what I've been writing in this thread, but every dictionary I consult doesn't seem to agree. Perhaps this is a case where I should just say screw the dictionary? The prospect that I may potentially have written dozens of errors in this thread horrifies me - I will have nightmares about this for weeks. (I do have the small consolation that if I have made an error, it is an error that has been shared by yourself - the member of most impeccable grammar and spelling on this forum.)

I must admit the whole one word/two words, hyphen or no hyphen issue is an area that often gives me trouble.

[Adam]

You can't run a piece of film actually caked in dead moths through a projector - the images have been re-photographed.

Actually, they haven't been. Mothlight consists of moth wings and bits of plants laid on a transparent, thin strip of 16mm celluloid with glue on one side that was then covered by two layers of perforated Mylar editing tape and printed for projection. The lack of recorded imagery resulted in an absence of frames, but by carefully placing the dead moths, leaves, and seeds in between the sprocket holes on the sides of the celluloid strip, Brakhage was able to simulate their effect. Brakhage wasn't the only one to work without a camera directly on the film strip (Len Lye and Norman McLaren both experimented with this in the 1930s), but he's certainly the one who took it furthest.

Actually, after he created that strip that you describe, he ran the whole thing through an optical printer to photograph it onto a new strip, which became the negative for screenings. I've held it in my own hands. Hmm, so I guess you are correct in saying that it isn't "re-photography"; it is "photography" of a prepared object.
Lots of others do the same now. Peter Tscherkassky in Outer Space, for example.

[Mr Sausage]

I'll definitely look into getting a copy of Telling Time. It sounds like an essential read for me.

I have a slightly strange question for Mr_sausage - "artform" or "art form"? I prefer "artform" and that's what I've been writing in this thread, but every dictionary I consult doesn't seem to agree. Perhaps this is a case where I should just say screw the dictionary? The prospect that I may potentially have written dozens of errors in this thread horrifies me - I will have nightmares about this for weeks. (I do have the small consolation that if I have made an error, it is an error that has been shared by yourself - the member of most impeccable grammar and spelling on this forum.)

I must admit the whole one word/two words, hyphen or no hyphen issue is an area that often gives me trouble.

Ok, so when you enter artform into the OED it directs you to the entry for "art form" (apparently the term is only 150 years old). 90% of the usage examples use the hyphenated form. The OED is descriptive rather than prescriptive, tho'.

This is one of those cases where, tho' I'm sure there is an arcane rule written for it somewhere in a musty old grammarian's book no one reads any more, all of the permutations have become acceptable. The OED doesn't list "artform," but the word is simply a portmanteau in the Joycean tradition (Joyce rather famously did away with hyphenated terms in favour of single words, ie. winedark, heaventree, ect.); and the mere fact that the dictionary ascribes an individual meaning to the collocation of two separate words (art and form) means there is no grammatical reason not to make a single word of them. Eliding or omitting hyphens is so common now that it has likely ceased to be an error (solecisms are by consensus). Wouldn't be surprised if the hyphenated form was incorporated because grammarians wanted to suppress the Germanic (read: barbaric) elements of English. Combinations like artform reflect the Germanic core of the language (Germanic languages are fond of such word accretions), so unless you aspire to be a Renaissance Humanist, there's no reason to care what tradition it reflects, so use it all you like.

[vogler]

Excellent - that's exactly what I wanted to hear. Artform makes far more sense to me, so that's what I'm sticking with. Now I can go to sleep.

[Nothing]

Sausage, surely 'artform' is even more encompassing than 'medium'. Oil, acrylic and watercolour being 'mediums' within the artform of 'painting', no? So if 'avant-garde cinema' is an entirely different artform from 'cinema' then what is this thread doing on this forum? This is not a straw man argument, it is a perfectly reasonable question. It should be on the Non-Cinema Arts board, surely (if you accept the proposed definition)?

For the record, btw, I apply the principal across the board and do not consider poetry a unique artform but, rather, a sub-categorization within the artform of literature. Drama / theatre, on the other hand, is a separate artform - the written work being only the first part of the process, the work not being complete until it has been performed on a stage.

Ultimately, returning to first base here, it is surely those proposing the new categorization who should have to justify themselves first and foremost. Why is the presence of narrative THE defining factor that distinguishes one artform from another? All I've heard so far are arguments that, intentionally or not, demean so-called "narrative filmmakers":

- the assertion that "Kubrick and Antonioni have a rudimentary grasp of rhythm, movement and light" (odd that you didn't see fit to challenge this too, sausage...);

- the suggestion that avant-garde filmmaking is closer to music than narrative cinema, that "its artistic intentions... bear no relation to narrative forms of cinema" (as if any serious filmmaker does not pay attention to editing rhythm, visual form and structure);

- the assertion that the presence of narrative means subscribing to a form of "common commercial cinematic expression" with "underlying assumptions";

- the assertion that avant-garde filmmakers are "investigating the very medium of celluloid" (as if any serious cinematographer is not doing this in their choice of filmstock, awareness of and deployment of film grain, etc);

- the suggestion of similarities between avant-garde cinema and other visual mediums (as if Barry Lyndon wasn't inspired by the paintings of Constable & Turner, as if Lynch wasn't inspired by Rothko, etc);

- the attempt to allign 'narrative cinema' with 'theatre', as a way of painting cinema with narrative elements as somehow backwards, as if the innovations of Bresson never took place (ignoring also Stanislavsky, whose 20th century methods proved more transformative and relevant to the 20th century artform of cinema than to theatre), as if the presence of actors or models precludes aesthetic considerations;

- the suggestion that a re-categorization is necessary to manage expectation and avoid 'frustration' in ignorant members of the audience (these being the kind of audience members who would fail to engage with any serious work of cinema, the people who would boo at the end of L'Avventura - who cares if they are frustrated or not?).

And all of this is surely undermined when you consider that even Brakhage and Snow deploy narrative elements in many of their films, that Godard is just as (if not more) avant-garde and experimental than any other filmmaker alive - and, yet, his films always contain narrative elements. All of which suggests that you surely need to get back to the drawing board.

[planetjake]

This was my quote exactly:

Also, how do the films Kubrick and Antonioni, two filmmakers who have rudimentary approaches to rhythm, movement and light benefit more from projection?

I never claimed that Kubrick and Antonioni had rudimentary GRASPS of anything. My claim (though not well articulated at the time) was that Kubrick and Antonioni had comparatively rudimentary approaches (APPROACHES was the word I very carefully chose) to cinema.

DO NOT INCORRECTLY QUOTE ME AGAIN.

In the past, I have the taken the time to correctly quote you. Your unwillingness to do the same for me (and presumably others on this board) speaks volumes not only about your lack of respect towards me and the other members of this forum, but also of your complete lack of resolve.

[Mr Sausage]

So if 'avant-garde cinema' is an entirely different artform from 'cinema' then what is this thread doing on this forum?

Nowhere will you find me saying anything like "'avant-garde cinema' is an entirely different artform from 'cinema'." Trying to win arguments by torturing other people's words and ideas out of shape is irritating. The point is whether or not avant-garde cinema counts as an individual artform, not whether it is an entirely different artform, which no one here is claiming or would claim.

The OED defines art form as: " An established form taken by a work of art, as a novel, concerto, portrait, film, etc.; an artistic genre." If a concerto can be an individual artform within music, if a portrait can be an individual artform within painting, and if the novel can be an individual artform within literature, then guess what...

Some illustrative uses just to hammer the point home: "1928 H. READ Phases of Eng. Poetry i. 11 Anglo-Saxon poetry is already a highly developed art-form." "1919 R. LYND Old & New Masters vii. 88 The dramatic lyric and monologue in which Browning set forth the varieties of passionate experience was an art-form of immense possibilities." Again, all "sub-catagories" that are still allowed to be their own artforms.

Poetry and prose are sub-categorizations within the medium of literature. Avant-garde cinema and arthouse cinema are sub-categorizations within the medium of film. How could this be any easier to understand?

What you haven't yet understood is that being a "sub-catagory" is not mutually exclusive with being an individual artform. You've taken that for granted and then repeated it incessantly without variation or argument.

[Nothing]

how do the films Kubrick and Antonioni, two filmmakers who have rudimentary approaches to rhythm, movement and light benefit more from projection [as opposed to DVD]?

I'm carrying this over from a discussion in the avant-garde cinema thread as I'd love to hear more from planetjake about how Kubrick has a rudimentary approach to rhythm, movement and light. To narrow it down, let's say Kubrick's rudimentary approach to light in Eyes Wide Shut - I think that would be a good place to start.

I never claimed that Kubrick and Antonioni had rudimentary GRASPS of anything. My claim (though not well articulated at the time) was that Kubrick and Antonioni had comparatively rudimentary approaches (APPROACHES was the word I very carefully chose) to cinema.

Either claim is equally ludicrous (and barely separable). I'd really like to hear more, however - and I don't think this is the right place for it. Accordingly, I have transposed your comment to the Stanley Kubrick thread.

DO NOT INCORRECTLY JOKE ME AGAIN.

lol.

Take it away, planetjake.

Nowhere will you find me saying anything like "'avant-garde cinema' is an entirely different artform from 'cinema'."...

I guess this does come down to definitions on some level. If "artform" = "genre", as the OED seems to suggest, then I guess there's less of an argument. I've never understood it to quite mean that. That still wouldn't allow the claim that avant-garde cinema is not a part of cinema (an argument that perhaps you yourself have not been making, but others certainly have).

[planetjake]

Hm. You're kind of a psychopath aren't you? I seriously suggest that you seek help from someone if you're still getting hung up on this (I mean this seriously, dude. Up your meds... now). I've clarified my statement repeatedly. This conversation is taking place within the specific context (and in comparison to) of avant-garde filmmakers. Attempting to trap me and confuse the argument, Nothing later claimed that I stated that Kubrick and Antonioni had rudimentary grasps of cinema. Any sensible person (I think we can all agree Nothing is in no way a sensible person.) who takes the time to read the entire discussion will realize this is not the argument I was attempting to make.

My official (and final) reply is as follows:

My claim (though not well articulated at the time) was that Kubrick and Antonioni had comparatively rudimentary approaches (APPROACHES was the word I very carefully chose) to cinema. Yes, conceptually, compared to all the filmmakers we are discussing (Snow, Brakhage, Benning, Jack Chambers etc. etc.) they had pretty rudimentary approaches to the medium. This is in no way a negative criticism. In fact Kubrick himself confided to Steven Spielberg late in his life that he had regretted not being able to expand the language of cinema as much as he would have liked. I don't understand why Nothing want's to make a big drama out of all this nonsense.

I highly recommend the later pages of the thread if any of you want enjoy watching Nothing get verbally spanked by a bunch of forum members, though.

You really are a child, aren't you?

I feel so sorry for you right now.

[Nothing]

So, in other words, you can't defend it (beyond a third-hand, out-of-context Spielberg quote) and you're not really willing to discuss it.

[planetjake]

So, in other words, you can't defend it (beyond a third-hand, out-of-context Spielberg quote) and you're not really willing to discuss it.

You no longer deserve any of my attention whatsoever.

I'm very truly sorry for you and (God help them) your family.

Please seek help Nothing. I'm serious.

[Nothing]

You really are a child, aren't you?

This from the person who told me to "go fuck myself" a short while ago

I just think if you're going to make wild assertions then you should have the courtesy to follow them up. I've spent the last however many pages explaining myself in fairly painstaking detail, now it's your turn to do the same... But if you're not up to it then, by all means, continue with the ad hominems...

[domino harvey]

You hope he seeks help for his problem with asking for clarification? He better call and check to make sure that's covered by his HMO firs--AWW DAMMIT

[MichaelB]

I just think if you're going to make wild assertions then you should have the courtesy to follow them up. I've spent the last however many pages explaining myself in fairly painstaking detail, now it's your turn to do the same...

Well, I look forward to you restarting this discussion, in which you made numerous wild assertions, all of which were challenged in painstaking detail... and which you generally refrained from following up.

Indeed, I made the observation at the time that you seemed to be cherry-picking only those points you felt you could handle while fairly blatantly ignoring the rest - but that was fine with me, as that in itself strengthened my case.

[Nothing]

It is still a buyers market, at this year's Cannes attests, and distributors have more power than ever. Some are asserting this power with regards to region coding - Artificial Eye, Masters of Cinema. Others are not - the BFI, Criterion. In any case, I've fairly lost interest in the issue, as it seems that region-free Blu-Ray is on the way - in fact, it has already arrived - so all of this is fairly irrelevent. The irony of course being, as the music business shows, that within a few years producers/distributors will have no choice but to release their work online in DRM-free digital copies anyway...

[Gregory]

The way I took planetjake's comment about directors such as Kubrick and Antonioni was that they had conventional approaches to film technique relative to Brakhage, Snow et al., i.e. using basic elements ("rudiments") of lighting, camera movement, etc. rather than exploding these or otherwise going back to the drawing board. I think it was meant to be a fairly non-controversial statement but the word choice of "rudimentary" (interpreted, pretty uncharitably I'd add, to mean "undeveloped") opened the door for Nothing to leap on it to an extent that repeated clarification will probably not help. From what I've seen in the avant-garde film thread, Nothing's approach to discussion seems to be to continually shift the basis of the argument so as to keep it going for its own sake, rather than seeking to understand others' positions in order to settle anything or find areas of agreement.

In any case, members trying to branch arguments into other threads is not a good idea, especially after they've already turned unpleasant.

[Nothing]

Looking at some of the filmmakers you and PJ mention, these are directors about whom the term rudimentary really could apply. Wavelength - a series of zooms across an unlit space, shot on 16mm, plonking filters and such in front of the camera on occassion, sometimes flipping to negative or pulling off a cheesy optical effect. Benning - I love the guy, but he is the most rudimentary (and elemental) filmaker alive. He has a Bolex camera, the most basic 16mm camera, and he puts it down on a tripod and films, whilst recording natural sound, and - that's it. No lighting, no movement. An editing rhythm that is usually limited by a structuralist principal (eg. 2m30secs for each shot, or the time it takes for a train to cross the frame). Compare this to the complex individual film languages and meticulous camera & lighting set-ups of Kubrick & Antonioni (Antonioni, in particular) and your claim simply shrivels into the ludicrous acorn of stupidity that it really is (in any case, does PJ really need you to defend him, can't he speak for himself?)

[MichaelB]

It is still a buyers market, at this year's Cannes attests, and distributors have more power than ever. Some are asserting this power with regards to region coding - Artificial Eye, Masters of Cinema. Others are not - the BFI, Criterion.

Surprisingly enough, I can respond to this and get back on topic at the same time - because of course a key reason that the BFI is the only one of those four to have released genuinely avant-garde and experimental titles on Blu-ray (namely the Jeff Keen and Kenneth Anger sets) is because it subsidises these riskier titles by licensing far more lucrative films from the majors - and accepting the contractual inevitability of region-coding as a by-product.

You'd never credit this from your sweeping generalisations, but in fact the BFI has actually released as many region-free Blu-ray titles as Artificial Eye. And remind me how many Blu-rays MoC has put out to date, despite entering the market at more or less the same time last autumn?

[Nothing]

The sole reason the BFI can release a Jeff Keen Blu-Ray is because it is a publically-funded charity organisation with no obligation to conform to market realities.

[Nothing]

Hey - who just fucking removed those posts from the Stanley Kubrick thread? Sausage? That is completely fucking mendacious. It's obvious that planetjake can lurk around this avant-Garde cinema thread, filled with avant-garde cinema obsessives, and make as many ludicrious remarks and ad hominem attacks as he likes without the slightest rebuke or moderator restraint. The only way to move the debate on with regards to Kubrick & Antonioni therefore, is to open it up to posters who actually understand those filmmakers - ellipsis7, david hare, etc - many of whom are unlikely to look at this thread.

[kinjitsu]

Unless I'm mistaken, they weren't removed but merged into this thread.

[Nothing]

The intention was to take it out of this thread, to open up a debate on *drum roll* Stanley Kubrick to people who had actually seen a Stanley Kubrick film, or, rather, to those who had paid attention.

[Mr Sausage]

Hey - who just fucking removed those posts from the Stanley Kubrick thread? Sausage?

Nope. Wasn't me.

obvious that planetjake can lurk around this avant-Garde cinema thread, filled with avant-garde cinema obsessives, and make as many ludicrious remarks and ad hominem attacks as he likes without the slightest rebuke or moderator restraint.

Hah! You have got to be kidding me.

[MichaelB]

The sole reason the BFI can release a Jeff Keen Blu-Ray is because it is a publically-funded charity organisation with no obligation to conform to market realities.

I can assure you that the DVD publishing arm most certainly does have an obligation to "conform to market realities", being not only one of the BFI's bigger income-generators but expected to improve on that position as overall running costs grow while public subsidy remains frozen at the same level that it has been for years. Which is why the catalogue has to intersperse big names like Pasolini, Antonioni and Kurosawa with the likes of Chris Newby and Andrew Kötting - an inescapable by-product of those pesky "market realities".

Of course, one bonus of being partially publicly funded is that you have the option of checking the figures for yourself - or just read the introduction, in which the DVD arm is singled out for "undergoing a remarkable renaissance in the range of titles it offers and the financial returns to the BFI" (italics mine).