Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

[zedz]

Not much to add to Adam's exhaustive bibliography, except the books I keep returning to are MacDonald's A Critical Cinemas. The interviews are almost all superb and revealing (and tantalising), but he's also excellent at providing critical commentary on the filmmakers in his introductions, so these volumes also serve as valuable biographical and critical resources for the filmmakers involved. Plus, MacDonald's definition of the 'avant-garde' is refreshingly Catholic.

[matrixschmatrix]

Haha, I'm assuming you mean small-c catholic there

[zedz]

Yes indeed. (The alternative would make for a very peculiar book, but one I'd like to read!)

[Adam]

Overlooked by me & others above, for British work:

A History of Artists' Film and Video in Britain, by David Curtis (BFI Publishing, 2007)

And Millennium Film Journal has lots of good essays from years past & present.

[adamhh]

Great and comprehensive booklist Adam!

The only ones I'd add are:

Stephen Dwoskin's 1975 Film Is... (now out of print - but a great thrift find!)
Michael O'Pray's Avant Garde Film: Form, Themes and Passions (Wallflower, 2003)
I also like Wheeler Dixon Wheeler's book on 60's experimental work.

I highly recommend the lux dvd list you cite. (Even if some of the suggestions do cost hundreds of pounds/dollars/euros)

[perkizitore]

Since Markopoulos doesn't have a dedicated thread, I thought I should post it here:
Kickstarter campaign for Temenos

[MichaelB]

But, it's really frustrating when filmmakers triumphed as seminal like Gehr, Benning and Snow are completely inaccessible to someone like me. Every critic and theorist discusses these filmmakers and it seems like to contribute to a-g film and the discourses about a-g film one must have an opinion on them. I find someone like Peter Kubelka saying he is fine with letting his films die with him to be highly disturbing, especially for an artist who had such an impact on the medium.

I interviewed Kubelka earlier today, and that absolutely remains his position. He made it very clear, in considerable detail, that he will never authorise the transfer of his films to any other medium, and is fully aware that this means not only that they might die with him but that they might be unshowable well before that unhappy day, thanks to fewer and fewer venues being able to handle 16mm and 35mm. He is also fully aware that this will impact on his income.

It seems like with digital technology getting better and better feasibly in the future video could match film. If Fred Camper can approve of the brakhage collection release, then maybe there is hope yet. I'm curious as to why there isn't a more concerted effort to get these filmmakers to budge?

Kubelka is completely unbudgeable - he believes so firmly that the medium is an integral part of his work (to the extent that he encourages audience to physically handle the film and exhibits his films as three-dimensional gallery pieces) that he simply doesn't recognise the notion that a digital version can in any way substitute for it - and this very much applies to a film like Arnulf Rainer, which one would have thought would be a perfect "digital" film in that it consists exclusively of "on" and "off" states in terms of image and sound (i.e. the image is either black or clear, the soundtrack either silent or white noise).

By way of illustrating his position, he was telling me about his latest piece, Antiphon, a companion piece to Arnulf Rainer that is its perfect opposite - the same number of frames, but if the older film has a clear frame, the newer one has a black frame, and the soundtracks are similarly inverted. When he screens them, they're shown separately, then together side by side, then one overlaying the other. Notionally, the end result should be a permanent clear screen and continuous white noise - but it doesn't work like that because every projector bulb's colour temperature is slightly different, and the same is true of every speaker.

In other words, this notionally flawless "digital" film is graphically revealed to be decidedly analogue - but the projection situation simply can't be replicated digitally. It's hard enough to bring off live, since you need two perfectly synchronised 35mm projectors - Kubelka hasn't performed the piece to an audience yet (it's touring various cities over the next few months), though he had a technical runthrough the other day and was thrilled with the result.

[swo17]

Kubelka (whom I highly respect) is of course entitled to present his work as he sees fit, though I do wonder if this is a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. People want to see these films, and though some remain elusive, bootlegs exist and end up serving as the authoritative versions for those without access to theatrical screenings for these types of films. Granted, some films just won't work at all in the digital realm, but it's a shame that for something like Wavelength, the only option widely available to the curious viewer is a crappy YouTube video (as opposed to, say, a lavish Criterion Blu-ray set à la Brakhage or Frampton).

[warren oates]

I wonder what artists like this think of Criterion's excellent Brakhage and Frampton sets...

They haven't seen them because they aren't on film! The time for purity in these matters has long since passed. Hopefully for the few filmmakers who hold out like this, when they're no longer with us their estates will find the good sense to disregard their wishes and Max Brod their work onto video.

[MichaelB]

Hopefully for the few filmmakers who hold out like this, when they're no longer with us their estates will find the good sense to disregard their wishes and Max Brod their work onto video.

I had to reluctantly abandon two dream projects because the filmmakers' estates proved absolutely impossible to deal with. Though in one case the problem was certainly down to their wholly unrealistic revenue expectations.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

...and someone who's truly unbudgeable on the film/video issue may well have their wishes written into their will, which would preempt whatever the estate might wish to do.

[MichaelB]

Given that the vast majority of Kubelka interviews see him bringing up the topic unprompted (within the first ten minutes of Martina Kudláček's four hour Fragments of Kubelka documentary, for instance), I suspect he'll be doing precisely that.

(Kudláček, presumably after consulting with Kubelka, does include sufficient extracts from his work so that we can get a feel for it, but there's almost invariably some kind of visual distraction to forestall piracy - a highly visible projector beam, Kubelka sitting in front of the screen, or playing it on a Steenbeck and regularly pausing and rewinding sections, etc.)

[Adam]

Given that the vast majority of Kubelka interviews see him bringing up the topic unprompted (within the first ten minutes of Martina Kudláček's four hour Fragments of Kubelka documentary, for instance), I suspect he'll be doing precisely that.

(Kudláček, presumably after consulting with Kubelka, does include sufficient extracts from his work so that we can get a feel for it, but there's almost invariably some kind of visual distraction to forestall piracy - a highly visible projector beam, Kubelka sitting in front of the screen, or playing it on a Steenbeck and regularly pausing and rewinding sections, etc.)

In your opinion, how is her Kubelka film? I thought her Maya Deren film was good and her Marie Menken film wasn't, getting too tied up following Gerard Malanga.

[Adam]

Kubelka (whom I highly respect) is of course entitled to present his work as he sees fit, though I do wonder if this is a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. People want to see these films, and though some remain elusive, bootlegs exist and end up serving as the authoritative versions for those without access to theatrical screenings for these types of films. Granted, some films just won't work at all in the digital realm, but it's a shame that for something like Wavelength, the only option widely available to the curious viewer is a crappy YouTube video (as opposed to, say, a lavish Criterion Blu-ray set à la Brakhage or Frampton).

Actually, Michael Snow created a version of Wavelength called "Wavelength for those who don;t have the time" that is about 15 minutes, was created digitally, and he screens from DVD or Blu-Ray. I have a DVD on the shelf here that he gave me.

But back to Kubelka, I think you are missing a key point here. Kubelka's films really are about film, and work only when handled and projected as film. It would be, well, stupid to view them digitally, and so there shouldn't be DVD or Blu-Ray editions made. People might watch them as bootleg crap, and c'est la vie, but they haven't seen the films, and they are fooling themselves if they think they have, or understand them.
It's a string position; feel free to disagree.
As for the Brakhage Criterion, there were a couple of Brakhage films under consideration for the sets that were left off because after the telecine was tried, it was felt that too much of their essential quality and look was lost. So it is really on a film-by-film basis to evaluate whether the critical aspects of a film (qua film) survive the transfer to digital. I also think that a Bu-Ray, for example. can have the relationship to a film that a photo in a book has to a painting, as a reminder, or an echo. But that is dependent on having seen the original at some point.
Snow's "Wavelength for those..." was really "about" digital editing. He basically cut the original in thirds and layers them on top of each other, a very simple procedure using Final Cut or Avid. There's a bit more to it than that. But you still have the changing wavelengths (in color spectrum and sound), and the zoom across space. But in 15 minutes.

[MichaelB]

In your opinion, how is her Kubelka film? I thought her Maya Deren film was good and her Marie Menken film wasn't, getting too tied up following Gerard Malanga.

I haven't seen her other films, but Fragments of Kubelka is mostly excellent - Kubelka (who is on screen, usually talking, for the vast majority of the running time) is such a spellbindingly interesting man on such a huge range of subjects that the four hours flew by.

I'd question whether we really needed the excessively long interview with a fan so ardent that he'd tattooed frames of Arnulf Rainer around his arm (we even get to see the actual tattooing after the point has been made by showing us the end result), and other parts could probably be tightened up too, but as an introduction to the breadth and totality of Kubelka's work (naturally, it concludes with a lengthy lecture on cooking, one of his favourite subjects), it's very highly recommended indeed.

Kubelka's films really are about film, and work only when handled and projected as film. It would be, well, stupid to view them digitally, and so there shouldn't be DVD or Blu-Ray editions made.

Kubelka acknowledges that it would be easy to construct something similar to Arnulf Rainer digitally, and even easier to make Antiphon (simply take the digital file of the first film and invert everything) - but it wouldn't be the same thing. Both films, especially when paired, are designed specifically to exploit the unique properties of projected light and the visible flickering of a projector shutter in a way that's a fundamental part of the intended viewing experience - so if you remove those elements it really doesn't make much sense any more.

As far as he's concerned, a screening of one of his films is essentially an unrepeatable live performance - especially if he's present and orchestrating everything. So he's philosophically quite relaxed about his films dying with him - after all, the vast majority of musicians and stage performers throughout human history are now only known by reputation, and his frame of reference goes back millennia.

[htshell]

Could Kubelka not leave instructions on how to create prints of Anulf Rainer and Anitphon, though? Perhaps it is a simplistic understanding of the content of these two films in particular, but it seems to me they are frames of black and clear leader arranged in certain patterns. If he left a blueprint towards this construction, it would be easily feasible for a gallery or perhaps knowledgeable archive or distributor to create "new prints."

[swo17]

Actually, Michael Snow created a version of Wavelength called "Wavelength for those who don;t have the time" that is about 15 minutes, was created digitally, and he screens from DVD or Blu-Ray. I have a DVD on the shelf here that he gave me.

Yes, I'm aware of this, though it's not quite the same thing, is it?

Kudláček, presumably after consulting with Kubelka, does include sufficient extracts from his work so that we can get a feel for it, but there's almost invariably some kind of visual distraction to forestall piracy - a highly visible projector beam, Kubelka sitting in front of the screen, or playing it on a Steenbeck and regularly pausing and rewinding sections, etc.

Except this doesn't seem to have completely worked, as a number of Kubelka's films exist in DVD-quality bootlegs. Including Arnulf Rainer, which I will concede is likely missing in that format a key element of its entire reason for being, though several of his other films have plenty to offer besides just being on celluloid.

[Matt]

I always wonder what the holdup getting Warhol's films on DVD/BD is. The Warhol Foundation/Museum has no issue with slapping images from his painting and prints on skateboard decks, iPhone cases, and cereal bowls, so why treat the films like some kind of holy relics?

[NilbogSavant]

What about the Raro set? I know the silent films are encoded at the wrong frame rate, but most of Warhol's work is there, right?

[swo17]

That's an unauthorized bootleg.

[Matt]

Bootleg or no, you might as well not watch a silent Warhol if you're going to watch it at the wrong frame rate.

[htshell]

After a recent visit to The Warhol I was a bit disappointed that all of the work was presented in video with seemingly little discussion or context of how and why he used 16mm. Would have been nice to at least see one 16mm film loop instead of video artifacts/compression on many of the projections.

[Adam]

I'd question whether we really needed the excessively long interview with a fan so ardent that he'd tattooed frames of Arnulf Rainer around his arm (we even get to see the actual tattooing after the point has been made by showing us the end result), and other parts could probably be tightened up too, but as an introduction to the breadth and totality of Kubelka's work (naturally, it concludes with a lengthy lecture on cooking, one of his favourite subjects), it's very highly recommended indeed.

I wonder if that's a friend of mine here in LA, who has that Arnulf Rainer tattoo on his arm.
Martina is married to Henry Hills, who makes great films and edits hers.

[zedz]

I'd question whether we really needed the excessively long interview with a fan so ardent that he'd tattooed frames of Arnulf Rainer around his arm (we even get to see the actual tattooing after the point has been made by showing us the end result), and other parts could probably be tightened up too, but as an introduction to the breadth and totality of Kubelka's work (naturally, it concludes with a lengthy lecture on cooking, one of his favourite subjects), it's very highly recommended indeed.

I wonder if that's a friend of mine here in LA, who has that Arnulf Rainer tattoo on his arm.

The alternative - that there's more than one of these guys out there - is too frightening to contemplate.

[AlexHansen]

Not to distract from the current discussion, but I came across an excellent interview with Ben Russell not too long ago and thought I'd pass it around.