Quote:
Originally Posted by BohemianGraham
(Post 5685157)
That's not necessarily true, because I still think you can still examine [experimental films] later and find something you may not have picked up on earlier. You can still dislike the film, and not agree with what the film maker was trying to do, but you can still learn something from it. I probably didn't articulate myself well enough. I also find it a bit hard to swallow that you can remember films you wrote off 30 years ago, when I have issues remembering films I've written off last week. If I don't like something, I usually try to block it. :)
|
I was careful to draw the distinction between narrative films and experimental/avant garde films. The former is skewed towards
content, and indeed, at different stages of your own development you will respond differently to the stories, characters, and themes presented. However, the latter is often more about
form, which is - and again this is just my opinion based on my own experiences - less likely to draw me back and re-engage my senses. I mean, once you get it, you
get it.
For example, as much as I admired the audacious brilliance of Michael Snow's
Wavelength, would I ever sit through that again? Nah. It had its intended effect, making me
[Show spoiler]contemplate the movement of the frame through space instead of the movement of objects within it. I saw a fairly early screening of that film hosted by the filmmaker himself, and you have to remember that this was the late 60s - no Internet, not even a film journal blurb that might have given away the nature of this cinematic stunt - nothing prepped us for the natural expectation that something - anything - would eventually enter that frame, which of course, it never did. The titular subject of the film remained visible at all times, just displaced through time and space.
I don't see how one could get anything
more from that pure expression of film
form via repeat viewings. It works only once per individual central nervous system. Even knowing in advance that
[Show spoiler]Wavelength is 45 minutes long - which we didn't and couldn't during that early screening - can't help but alter its effect on an audience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BohemianGraham
(Post 5685157)
I'm probably stretching things there by comparing Frampton with these examples, but I just feel you're being dismissive of him based on what you watched, rather than actually looking up any information on him.
|
Hold on. People formed opinions about art and artists long before the Internet or Wikis existed. My sampling of Hollis Frampton's work 30 years ago was admittedly no more than a third of his shorts. And although I don't recall the specifics of them now - except that damn lemon - I still remember how I
felt back then. That's all you're hearing now...the verbal equivalent of my massive shrug at the time. :shrug:
As previously noted, I still think there are better and more prolific avant garde filmmakers whose works
do hold up to further scrutiny, and were much worthier of a Criterion Blu-ray showcase than Frampton. Canada's own NFB for one major under-appreciated example...
