American cinema is monopolized by Hollywood where films are made much like Detriot makes cars -- on an assembly line. Filmmakers and their studio backers tend to follow the examples of the past, making films that follow strict narrative formulas for success; there is way too much money at stake to take risks. Mainstream commercial films are governed by absolute moral tenets, codes and conventions allowing for no deviation -- each one virtually indistinguishable from the next.
Beginning in the 1940's, however, with the development of increasingly portable and inexpensive 16mm equipment and film stock, artists in the United States turned to film to express their personal visions independent of Hollywood. These early avant-garde filmmakers were concerned, like artists in the other modern arts and their predecessors in Europe, with unique personal vision and expression. They consciously questioned the validity of mainstream mass-produced movies and sought to subvert traditional narrative structure, audience expectation, and the grip of realism which had for decades defined American cinema. They disregarded the codes and conventions of Hollywood which had so clearly and strictly indicated what could and could not be shown on film and which held a stranglehold on creativity and experimentation. And, perhaps, most of all, they vigorously explored the fundamental properties of film, including the actual celluloid material of the film itself. Some artists of the movement painted directly on the film producing a swirl of shape, color and rhythm which is ever changing. A constant kinetic flux. Others experimented with scratches, chemicals, mold-growth or deliberately placed hairs or dust in the gate. They superimposed images, edited unrelated images into collage, worked with image repetition, batik or film speed. Dozens of feet of academy leader could be edited in at random places. It was non-narrative (sometimes entirely non-representational, as in the so-called "graphic" films) and it invigorated the stagnant film society with energy and change. These artists force the viewer to constantly readjust his/her way of seeing as the film itself evolves.
Non-narrative, avant-garde films are not made to be described in words (so cut me some slack for my above attempt) but are made to be seen. Most of the films made during this period are hard to find, are not available on vhs or dvd. But if you can find anything by Maya Deren, Bruce Conner, Robert Breer, Harry Smith, Kenneth Anger, Fernand Leger, Hans Richter (and oh so many others) jump at the chance. Open your eyes. It is exhilarating.
In the end, most people are quite content to zone out with a tub of popcorn watching some Hollywood schlock. People like to be told what to think. This is entertainment ... we don't want to have to work too hard here. Narrative film will always dominate and perhaps rightly so. There are some extraordinary ones out there I'll admit (more on these later). And underground is only radical while underground.
Beginning in the 1940's, however, with the development of increasingly portable and inexpensive 16mm equipment and film stock, artists in the United States turned to film to express their personal visions independent of Hollywood. These early avant-garde filmmakers were concerned, like artists in the other modern arts and their predecessors in Europe, with unique personal vision and expression. They consciously questioned the validity of mainstream mass-produced movies and sought to subvert traditional narrative structure, audience expectation, and the grip of realism which had for decades defined American cinema. They disregarded the codes and conventions of Hollywood which had so clearly and strictly indicated what could and could not be shown on film and which held a stranglehold on creativity and experimentation. And, perhaps, most of all, they vigorously explored the fundamental properties of film, including the actual celluloid material of the film itself. Some artists of the movement painted directly on the film producing a swirl of shape, color and rhythm which is ever changing. A constant kinetic flux. Others experimented with scratches, chemicals, mold-growth or deliberately placed hairs or dust in the gate. They superimposed images, edited unrelated images into collage, worked with image repetition, batik or film speed. Dozens of feet of academy leader could be edited in at random places. It was non-narrative (sometimes entirely non-representational, as in the so-called "graphic" films) and it invigorated the stagnant film society with energy and change. These artists force the viewer to constantly readjust his/her way of seeing as the film itself evolves.
Non-narrative, avant-garde films are not made to be described in words (so cut me some slack for my above attempt) but are made to be seen. Most of the films made during this period are hard to find, are not available on vhs or dvd. But if you can find anything by Maya Deren, Bruce Conner, Robert Breer, Harry Smith, Kenneth Anger, Fernand Leger, Hans Richter (and oh so many others) jump at the chance. Open your eyes. It is exhilarating.
In the end, most people are quite content to zone out with a tub of popcorn watching some Hollywood schlock. People like to be told what to think. This is entertainment ... we don't want to have to work too hard here. Narrative film will always dominate and perhaps rightly so. There are some extraordinary ones out there I'll admit (more on these later). And underground is only radical while underground.
2 comments:
Big Hollywood films are usually not worth bothering with -- take, for example, the hugely popular Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I could barely sit through the last one, mostly because it was so poorly written. On the other hand, I'm not overly interested in avant garde films. I want a good story, good acting, etc. Plot is very important and it's great if it makes you think a bit too.
I love a film that makes you think and see things differently. Take Cassavetes ... he was completely outside of Hollywood and made films that were largely character driven. Plot was secondary. I'm just interested in film that is utterly devoid of plot, character, narrative as well. I love to be surprised, shocked, baffled by what I see. I do not believe that plot is necessarily important. Usually it is overrated.
Post a Comment