'A' Grade Exam Response
‘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?
By definition an avant-garde work is a piece in which the usual boundaries of the artistic area are pushed textually and contextual, often they put the artists political/social/cultural views forward. Therefore, with this in mind, experimental film should be suggested to put the spectator point of view into a whole new perspective, the perspective of the artist.
If we start by looking at Simon Pummel's narrative film, Bodysong. Personally I found this film to be almost life-affirming, it shows images that would never normally be seen. The whole film is created with stock footage; none of the images belong to Pummel. The images create a film that shows the spectator how life develops. The opening is very slow paced, in editing with only non-diegetic sound, the ambient soundtrack with the microscopic images from inside a womb had a very calming effect upon me. Almost suggesting that this is how life starts out, slow and calm. However, this is contradictory to many of the shocking images of the birthings that are put to the audience, images that would never be shown in a mainstream film. This gives a whole new light on the idea of birth. One of the images shows a baby with a chord wrapped around its neck, telling the audience that often things do go wrong and births aren’t always as simple as a Hollywood movies may portray it to be. The fact the images throughout the film are taken from different cultures and span over an extended period of time shows how, no matter where in the world and no matter what decade you lived in, the fundamentals of life are always the same. Take again, the birthing images for example, it shows us that a baby is always and has always been weighed immediately after its birth. I found that this gave an almost nostalgic feeling and most definitely shows how one way of life can be completely different to another and yet still, often we do all carry out the same routine. Although this film could be considered somewhat boring, due to it slow pace and lack of voice over, I felt it to be almost transfixing and would be a great example of how experimental film makes the spectator experience the world in different way, or at least shows them the world in a new light.
I think the same can be said for much of Andy Warhol’s work. Despite Warhol often being considered to be surrounded by and the cause of much underground rebellion, encouraging, what is often described as ‘eroticised’ behaviour, his work can come across as rather philosophical. Take his first 1st film, Sleep ( 1963), this film offered a whole new experience for film viewers. Warhol’s screen tests showed the spectator something that had never been shown before. Much like Bodysong (or many other experimental films for that matter), it could be considered boring, which for this could be true, as it is simply hours of somebody sleeping. But with the idea in mind that this film would not be shown in a multiplex cinema, it would be shown to a niche, artistic audience that would see what Warhol was trying to do. Sleep merges the boundaries of sleep time and dream time, they turn them into one, instead 2 separate aspects of life. This is something could also be said for his film, Empire. Warhol; shot 8 hours of the Empire State Building. To use moving image to capture a completely still object was incredibly forward thinking. It blurred the idea that film had to be exciting, that it had to be fast and constant. I found that it proved how a camera could capture any part of life or any length of time. In regards to whether or not it changes how a spectator views the world, I would suggest that the textual material that is shot doesn’t show you a new world, in the way that Bodysong does, but the point that Warhol was trying to make with such a film does. It tells you how the mainstream ideology of film is not necessarily the only way to use the power of filmmaking.
I would suggest that his movement into narrative filmmaking gave an even stronger sense of rejection to the mainstream. After having watched his trash film, Heat, you can see how much his work differs from mainstream filmmaking. For me, the entire film came across as slow, boring and had a lingering air of awkwardness. The opening is slow in pace of editing; we are shown the mundane aspects of everyday life, for example, a lengthy, long shot of a mother and daughter arguing. It is this attempt at showing how dull and ordinary reality can be that that gives this sense of boredom to the film. With regards to my comment about the film having a sense of awkwardness, I felt this was due to some of the scenes, such as the long takes and close ups of sex scenes. This uncomfortable feeling could be due to the classroom environment I was viewing the film within and if watched in a more appropriate place (possibly an art house cinema), this may not be something that comes across. What is also interesting about the sex scenes in this film, is the rejection of Laura Mulvey’s male gaze theory. In Warhol’s films, he allows the camera to ‘gaze’ at the male body as well as the female. I feel that this film, gives a far more accurate account of life than any mainstream film would. I would suggest that Warhol's experimental work does in fact show a different perspective on the world and therefore, in my opinion, does alter the way a spectator views the world.
Based on the films I have viewed for this experimental topic, including the examples given, I feel that experimental film does set out to show the viewer a whole new take on the world. Often showing the reality of lives that wouldn’t otherwise be considered. It puts a new idea, based on the views of the artist, to the viewer and asks them what their opinions would be about it. This completely opposes the typical mainstream film, which simply spoon feeds information to the audience and tells them which character to like and which to not, as well as which views they should take. Experimental film left me with much more room to consider my own opinions upon the issues posed and allowed me to think about what I was seeing, rather than telling me what I should think.
I would suggest that his movement into narrative filmmaking gave an even stronger sense of rejection to the mainstream. After having watched his trash film, Heat, you can see how much his work differs from mainstream filmmaking. For me, the entire film came across as slow, boring and had a lingering air of awkwardness. The opening is slow in pace of editing; we are shown the mundane aspects of everyday life, for example, a lengthy, long shot of a mother and daughter arguing. It is this attempt at showing how dull and ordinary reality can be that that gives this sense of boredom to the film. With regards to my comment about the film having a sense of awkwardness, I felt this was due to some of the scenes, such as the long takes and close ups of sex scenes. This uncomfortable feeling could be due to the classroom environment I was viewing the film within and if watched in a more appropriate place (possibly an art house cinema), this may not be something that comes across. What is also interesting about the sex scenes in this film, is the rejection of Laura Mulvey’s male gaze theory. In Warhol’s films, he allows the camera to ‘gaze’ at the male body as well as the female. I feel that this film, gives a far more accurate account of life than any mainstream film would. I would suggest that Warhol's experimental work does in fact show a different perspective on the world and therefore, in my opinion, does alter the way a spectator views the world.
Based on the films I have viewed for this experimental topic, including the examples given, I feel that experimental film does set out to show the viewer a whole new take on the world. Often showing the reality of lives that wouldn’t otherwise be considered. It puts a new idea, based on the views of the artist, to the viewer and asks them what their opinions would be about it. This completely opposes the typical mainstream film, which simply spoon feeds information to the audience and tells them which character to like and which to not, as well as which views they should take. Experimental film left me with much more room to consider my own opinions upon the issues posed and allowed me to think about what I was seeing, rather than telling me what I should think.
No comments:
Post a Comment