Avant Garde Film

This is another name for experimental films. Film scholars say that studying experimental films deepens one’s understanding of the film medium. Although a wide array of films fall under this type of films, they have some things in common.

• They portray things differently from the way mainstream film did and still does in both technique and subject of film.
• Many times they are “personal projects” for its director(s). For example, it could be something that is just meaningful to their own selves.
• They are produced within a small budget.

• It is said to be “visual poetry”. It wasn’t made to convey a storyline or plot, rather its images just strewn together.
• If you ask, “What does this film mean?”…you probably wont be able to answer it.

Meshes in the Afternoon (1943)

This movies was done by a husband and wife team, Alexander Hamid and Maya Deren. Maya was a poet, teacher, dancer, and her films were to some extent, characterized by these.

Watch this film and you will notice that there are images used as symbols heavily. Symbolism that one explains in the film are interpretation of critics usually. Interpretations such as the flower representing a chance at life. Shrouded mirror representing death. Key representing opening one’s life. Phone off the hook representing a lack of communication. The list goes on.

Some themes that one can pick out are the feeling of being trapped, fear of the bedroom, marital/relationship issues. All this is done through the imagery.

A Movie (1958)

A Movie was a collage film produced by Bruce Conner consisting of footage from other films. The material was selected, and structured in a certain manner with added music. Some call this a documentary of sort.

This film is different in the fact that repeatedly you see the title and the producer of the film show on screen through out, as if Bruce Conner is saying, “hey look, I made the film”

Scorpio Rising (1963)

A experimental/avant garde documentary film by Kenneth Anger about a motorcycle gang of New York. You will notice that in this film, in place of dialogue and traditional background music, plays a series of popular 80’s songs to a “storyline.”

Something that the viewer may think about is, “What is the relationship between the soundtrack and the film’s images?” One thing to note is that, the images portray male sexuality on film. The way the camera movement characterizes that action itself. Films rarely portray the male figure in this way, but considering that the director behind the camera is gay, is understandable.

Some of the themes portrayed in the film are:

• Self-image
• Idolizing a figure
• Modeling behaovir, dress, character
• Following. Conformity in the name of “individuality”

Its interesting how the links imagery of Hitler, a gang-leader, and Jesus with disciples together to stress the themes they are pushing forward.

It’s interesting how the director is one of the founders of The Church of Satan, which is an organization for those who have a focus on materialism and individualism, and practice self-preservation as instrcuted in the The Satanic Bible written by Anton LaVey.

- — - — -

Personal Comments:

Although many of the well known experimental films are not up to the moral standards of Islam, they directors prove that imagry and symbolism are strong tools to use in the visual medium. Tools can be used for good or bad, how they are used depends on the weilder.

     

Leave your comments. Share your thoughts and remember to subscribe!

Decline of Hollywood Cinema (1945-1960)

Hollywood had come to a point in time where different studios had monopolized on different types of films. A-movies, B-movies, cartoons, newsreel, etc. They made it such that others could not compete in the different types of movies. Each individual studio controlled a certain outlet. The different studios didn’t work in collaboration.

Due to the monopolization, the workers went on strike. That combined with post World War II atmosphere, death of FDR, and McCarthyism. Hollywood cinema lost its footing. The monopoly was broken up and this ended the Hollywood studio era. Studios like Warner Brothers were preparing to go into temporary shutdown.

While all this was happening in America, cinema was taking shape in Europe.

Italian Neorealism (Post World War II Italy)

This was a movement that started up in post war Italy. The nation was in rubbles was recovering. The studios they had had already been destroyed in the war. In order to move forward with their cinema they used what was available to them.

They began using poorer quality newsreel stock film. Shot without sets and on location. They had minimal or no artificial lighting. Mostly non-professional actors. As a result the films had a documentary look. It didn’t have the slick and highly polished look of Hollywood.

Later on their philosophy developed into this. They stood behind their view that this is how films need to be made. Be able to depict everyday people with everyday problems. Cesare Zavattini explained that they want to show things as they are and not what they seem. Depict the common man. Reveal everyday rather than the fictional. Show the real world as opposed to fantasy. Make the films look like reality.

One of Zavattini’s films titled “Bicycle Thief” demonstrated just that.

• The focus was on the working class
• Main character is the only known actor
• Most of the filming was done during daytime (due to lack of artificial lighting)
• No real sets. Everything is shot on location. The action isn’t really setup.
• Most of the film is done in long shot. This is to show the characters in the environment. Gives you the feel of being in the slice of life.
• You don’t feel like that the director is composing the shot. It’s opposite of Orson Wells.

This style of filmmaking was meant to be cost effective. After Italy had abandoned Neorealist filmmaking. Other nations had picked it up and had become quite popular. Nations like America, England, and India.

French New Wave (Late 1950s & 60s)

The French New Wave was started by film enthusiasts. These are people who were film student that became critics. They loved all types of film and came up with Auteur Theory. Starting off with documentaries, then moving on to short films, they soon started making full features.

Their attitude was that anything goes. Approaching film in a new sort of way. 1959 Started “Modernism”.

• Jean Luc Godard made Breathless
• Alain Resnais made Hiroshima Mon Amour
• Francois Truffaut made The 400 Blows

These guys truly loved American movies, but were ready to remake cinema.

One of the films that demonstrated the whole Modernism attitude was Vivre Sa Vie (My Life to Live) by Jean Luc Godard. When watching the film, you notice

• He mixes styles and techniques
• He broke away from conventional ways of filming. As the movie plays you are aware of the director’s process and know that it’s a movie.
• The technique is self conscience. Sometimes the technique itself is the subject as opposed to the character.

The film is nearly opposite that of Hitchcock’s “Rear Window” where Hitchcock made you feel that its real by immersing you into the story and characters. Here the director is making an anti-illusionary film. The directing reminds you that it’s not real.

• Hitchcock used a lot of shot/counter-shot and shot/reverse-shot editing when it came to character’s having conversation. The camera movement here instead was quite random. They used distancing devices. You don’t relate with the character like in “Rear Window” because of the lack of POV editing.
• The film itself is presented in “episodes”, giving the effect that life is experienced in pieces and not a whole.
• At one point in one of the “episodes” the camera leaves and starts looking into the street, leaving the character behind as if it just left her

What is a “modernist” film?

• The idea is for the technique to draw attention to itself.
• Reflexivity
• American influence
• There is not conventional morality/heros
• unconventional narrative structure
• Mixed genre
• Less pure entertainmen, and more about issues. Attention is given to psychology and society.

     

Leave your comments. Share your thoughts and remember to subscribe!

Can a movie really tell you what you want to know?

Citizen Kane was co-written, directed, and starred Orson Welles. Before entering the movie business, Welles had come from a radio and broadway background. Got his initial fame from the radio spoof of “The War of the Worlds” based on H. G. Wells book.

Welles was 25 years old when he made Citizen Kane. When he came to Hollywood, he was already well known because of his radio career. He was given a choice of contracts and could make what ever movie he wanted to. He was known as playful spirit. He stated that Hollywood is the biggest toy train set ever.

You can just imagine him coming to the studios and thinking “How can I have fun with this?”

Citizen Kane is about the psychological life of an individual. The movie some say is was based on the life of William Randolf Hearst. Hearst certainly thought so and banned his newspaper conglomerate from writing any reviews or responses to it. Although Welles was known as one of the best directors of all time, and Citizen Kane was known as one of the best movies of all time, it was a box office failure. Perhaps this is due to Hearst’s response…perhaps not.

Welles turned classical filmmaking upside down with this film. Broke away from D. W. Griffith’s tradition of analytical editing. His film was nonlinear in terms of chronology, made up of flashbacks from many different points of view. He used a lot of expressionist devices, and itself was in a way a reflexive film.

If you learn about Orson Welles you will notice that the character Charles Foster Kane in a way mirrors his own life in a way. He probably saw himself in the character. Read about Welles and Citizen Kain in Wikipedia (links above) to see what I mean.

Gregg Toland worked with Welles as his cinematographer on this film. One thing that was different and innovative in a way was the depth of field style. The focus of the background, foreground, middle ground is the same. Welles (unlike Hitchcock) did not use editing as primary means of style. He puts most of his attention on the camera movement and placement. Take the opening sequence of Touch of Evil for example. With Welles the camera seems to have a mind of its own. It doesn’t necessarily follow the characters. People enter a room via a door. The camera enters the room via a window or skylight.

If you pay attention to the opening sequence of the movie you will notice a few things. One is that the people are all dark, making them appear shady and mysterious. They show a film reel about Kane and then say, “This tells us what he did, but not what we want to know. Who is Charles foster Kane?” What do they want to know? Then a discussion starts about Kane’s last words before death, and it appears as though they are looking for some sort of scandal. This makes you question the ethics of those people.

One final thing comes up for me is the whole argument in filming: editing vs. camera. Hitchcock was all about editing. Welles is all about camera. Which one to master? I guess it depends on what one is most comfortable with.

     

Leave your comments. Share your thoughts and remember to subscribe!