FM4 - section B

“Experimental Films are often designed to make us see and experience the world differently”

Has this been your experience as a spectator of the films you have studied for this topic?

Unlike mainstream cinema experimental films are designed to challenge. They stretch the mind of the spectator to ideals and critiques of society that may have not been previously considered. As a new spectator to experimental cinema I found it difficult to conceptually grasp many of the films I watched, at least on first watch.

Early experimental film in some sense spanned from the French surrealist movement of the 1920’s. This movement questioned the conformity enforced on society through religion and politics, it came as a powerful critique of this and so surrealist films were produced with the intention of potentially enlightening its audience to such opinions. In attempting to do so, famous surrealist films by Luis Bunel such as Un Chein Andalou were inevitably banned. However now, they are not so much of a threat to society and can be legally shown. Whilst watching Un Chein Andalou it was clear that is was made with a disorientating intention, take for instance the first few shots include Bunel himself sharpening a razor, and as expectations of films go it is then expected that Bunel will shave. In fact the shot then cuts to an extreme close up of the slicing of an eyeball with this razor. This is immediately shocking, juxtaposing the two shots to emphasis this even more. This links with surrealisms attempt to question what is expected within the art of film and questioning it. The film lures the audience into a false sense of what the film is, expecting a more mainstream viewing was the intention of Bunel who starts the film with a credit sequence but also the words “Once Upon A Time...” this is typical of a structured narrative, making the following scenes more unpleasant and shocking. This was my first introduction to surrealist cinema and so came as much of a shock to me as I am sure Bunel indended. However as my experience with surrealist and other forms of experimental cinema expanded, so did my expectations. I became more open to forms of cinema and their intentions of questioning the world in which we live, it was something which liberated my viewing. Being able to understand the society and opinions that they represented allowed me to question this myself.

Another form of cinema that began to question the way I expected film to be put together was from Andy Warhol’s auteur perspective, although his work was seen as exceptionally lazy (at times getting others to direct for him) he intended to portray the ordinary. Unlike surrealism, Warhol’s work focuses on the reality of the world, he filmed things which were in his everyday occurrence. Including an 8 hour long static shot of a man sleeping, originally titled “Sleep.” Watching some of his films became incredibly uncomfortable to watch. I found this was the case much more with his later work in what has become to be known as “Trash Cinema” and although employed by Warhol the films were directed by Paul Morrissey. In “Heat”, there is a very lethargic narrative based loosely on Sunset Boulevard, known as Trash for its poor acting and film technique. The most memorable part of the film is the sex scene between a tenant and his landlord which is how he pays for his room. Sex scenes that are usually associate with films are romanticised, this one however is a static shot with diegetic sounds of all the noises involved making it difficult to establish whether what is being shown on the screen is in fact happening or merely acting. This made it incredibly uncomfortable to watch, and limited my liking for the new “reality” that Warhol was portraying.

However his work also includes 427, 3 minute screen tests of different individuals that really fascinated me. Visually they comprised of a person (sometimes two) in front of a set camera that was left running while the subject was asked to remain as still as possible. The project began as a representation of identity, influenced by wanted posters and ID cards the set up was balanced lighting and a centrally framed subject. However as the series progressed it turned into a more psychological question on the subjects, rather than asked to sit still and avoid smiling they were left to act voluntarily for the time period. They act as a portrait of the self, however rather than the anticipated still image it was a moving portrait. As well as progression in the concept of this work there was also a change in the lighting that was used, changing from balanced light to experimenting with low key and contrasting lights to effect the subject and measure how it would do so. I found these screen tests fascinating, psychologically they are eye opening but as a set are also an intriguing compilation of 1960’s American art scene and Warhol’s personal life.

The experimental film that had the most influence on me as a spectator was Simon Pummells Body Song, a feature length film comprising of archive footage from over 100 years. The film relies on carefully constructed montages each using footage from across the world, with an overall theme which depicts the human life, starting off from birth to the more drastic social and political consequences of life such as famine and war. Similarly to Warhol’s work this film was realistic, the stock footage used made this much more shocking for every clip that was shown, it was something that was real. This made it difficult to watch the montage of birthing scenes, some successful and some not so which takes place at the beginning of the film. This scene in the film began to make me question, along with Warhol’s Heat, just how much of mainstream cinema is a clear representation of the average experience. I understood how the cinema I was used to dramatised selected themes or at certain times limited them to avoid controversy, whereas experimental film does the opposite. In doing so is able to immediately shock a spectator.