Secion B - Experimental Cinema

In the films you have studied for this topic, discuss how far the production techniques and/or ways which they are presented challenge the spectator [35]

Developing a response to the variety of avante garde films within this topic has proved a challenge, I was forced to interpret obscure techniques and visuals which previously would have been spoon fed to me through mainstream cinema. Through the use of film techniques I was encouraged to discover my own perception of what film can be and its possible connotations.

The technique of discontinuity editing within Surrealist film Un Chein Andalou was something which I struggled with, the idea of surrealism is to argue against conformity. It was a French 1920’s movement that fought against society and how everything supposedly has its place and should remain there. This was the element of surrealism that I enjoyed, it’s concept. In order to portray this Bunel created a disorientating film, with many scenes that make no sense whatsoever. Take for instance the woman in one shot shutting the door behind the male character, with the next shot featuring him within the room. This is then followed by him fondling her whilst her clothes seamlessly disappear off her body and her breasts turn into buttocks. This was incredibly disorientating and therefore difficult to watch due to the unexplainable scenes. I was encouraging myself to like these scenes and not experience a challenge because of my enthusiasm for the concept however I felt nothing more than amusement for this sequence because of how unusual it was to watch.

As I found the underlying nature of surrealism intriguing a later Bunel film appealed to me more, The Phantom Of Liberty. Instead of use of unexplainable editing this film relies less on visuals and more on mise en scene and narrative. Within this film the characters sit around a table together whilst enjoying a toilet break, refusing to talk about such “disgusting” things such as food whilst on the toilet. In contrast to this the male character then leaves the toilet to ask a maid (holding a plate of toilet paper) where he might find the dinner table to eat in peace. This film shows a role reversal, one which I found inciteful and enjoyable to behold. This form of surrealism and questioning of conformity appealed to me much more, perhaps due to its techniques being similar to that of mainstream cinema as it involved a basic narrative and classic camera shots.

Another form of film technique I found challenging was discovered by director Stan Brackage. Instead of using the typical camera to shoot his film, instead he created it. Inserting moth wings, leaves and other naturalistic materials in between two sets of transparent splicing film for MothLight. This created visuals similar to continuous flashing paintings, which was also similar to when he painted on film for Stella. I found these difficult to appreciate, without a narrative or concept that I could latch onto, watching them seemed to get lost on me. The challenge I found with this was trying to create meaning, in comparison to surrealism which has no meaning purely for that reason Brackage’s films did not has a similar impact. Although I found them visually stunning as a compilation of images I could not comprehend a meaning behind them. Throughout watching and interpreting mainstream cinema I have become used to quickly understanding how I should be feeling about a scene having all the comforts of Hollywood cinema lost for these films proved a challenge to explore my own personal response and uncover a reason for them.

One of my favourite explorations of avante garde cinema, along with Andy Warhol’s compilation of screen tests, was 1969 film Necrology. It consists of two major parts, the first, an 8 minute static camera of people rising into what could be interpreted as the heavens. It turns out that this was in fact the director filming people descending down an escalator and playing it in reverse. The use of this technique allowed much more interpretation to the shot and because of this I did not find it as much of a challenge to enjoy as others. However its intentions did not become fully clear until the second part began. This was unlike anything I have previously seen, the most memorable part of the film was in fact the credits. Unlike the film itself in which you saw dozens of faces with no understanding of a back-story behind them, the credits gave this. It lists the cast members each with their own description some of which were incredibly funny and a deep insight into the person i.e. Woman with Canker sore in her left cheek. The part I found challenging of this film was to rethink my interpretation of the film after the credits had ran. I did this after seeing “Standish Lawder” the director, credited as a cast member on the escalator. I had previously assumed the film questioned the reality, in a similar way to Warhol, by portraying the reality. Once I found Lawder was credited, this was not the case; the shots must have been staged. This created a whole other interpretation, and proves just how polysemic some of the experimental texts can be, had I only seen the beginning section of the film I would have been content with my interpretation which was not altered till the end.

Experimental cinema proved a challenge, even with the films I enjoyed there was difficulty in understanding how the choices of production techniques were used and how they complemented the potential meaning. It has proven to me, that whether or not a film is understood and accepted by everyone, it should be appreciated: there are no guidelines accept the sociable norm as to how a film should be constructed and accepted.