criterionforum.org

vogler,

It's possible that he has different feelings about La Region Centrale now. In this context, I've only ever spoken with him directly about Wavelength. He's made a number of videos over the years and he's not against them or certain other works existing in that format, but he does make distinctions based on the particular nature of the work and he views Wavelength as totally film-dependent (I've heard he feels the same way about La Region Centrale).

Anyways, to get us back where we were a couple pages ago, there are a number of great filmmakers who don't mind (or wouldn't have minded) having their work put out on good DVDs and I hope By Brakhage 2 does well enough to make some additional avant-garde releases feasible. The Conner situation is complicated, but last I heard the Frampton and Landow films are available and I'm sure Jonas Mekas would be happy to let Criterion put out a film like "As I Was Moving Ahead Occasionally I Saw Brief Glimpses of Beauty."

Gregory wrote:Stating that film distribution and projection will be totally dead in five years most certainly is a prediction

16mm film distribution & projection. Maybe give it 10 years to be sure.

Gregory wrote:those kinds of problems are what's relevant to the question of whether we should making everything available in whatever form, no matter what

But here we are again claiming that the work of Snow et al. is somehow impossible to capture on a format that represents the works of 99.999999% of all other filmmakers. The implication being - perhaps not from yourself, but certainly from others, including Snow and the fool Chodorov - that their work, due to it's lack of narrative, is somehow superior, more elusive, requires better treatment and greater respect. Vogler doesn't help matters when he talks about "the artform of avant-garde cinema". Avant-garde cinema is a sub-categorization of an artform, the artform being "cinema".

I agree entirely about You Tube and streaming video clips on Ubuweb, however - I wouldn't want to watch any serious work of cinema in such a manner. And a proper DVD (or, ideally, Blu-Ray) release of the material negates such a necessity for those living outside of New York, LA, London, Paris or Tokyo (but God forbid that such proles have access to these meisterwerks).

stereo wrote:What I 'bristle' at are presumptions that existing avant-garde/experimental distribution is adequate... I do get wary of the 'vanguard' when it supports policing the gaze

Agreed. And, of course, it is the influence of the filmmakers that is suffering most of all, whether or not fading 16mm prints continue to lurk in the more obscure corners of academia for a few more years to come. How many up and coming filmmakers have even heard of, let alone been inspired by, Snow or Connor - as opposed to the Coen Bros, Tarantino, etc...? Fight the fight! Don't withdraw into your tiny little niche, mumbling that you're better than everybody else.

ptmd wrote:It's certainly true that Pip has convinced a number of people to release their films through Re:Voir on VHS but not DVD

Lol - who are these people? Mr. Kadema from Nigeria would like their e-mail addresses, he has a large amount of money he needs to deposit.

ptmd wrote:The only thing that's made them slightly harder to see in recent years is that many colleges and universities have dramatically slashed film rental budgets and eliminated 16mm projectors as a cost-saving measure (sadly, some festivals have done this as well). That's extremely unfortunate and I wish it would change

Yes it's going to change, it's going to get worse - the direct impact of cheaper digital technology. So the solution is _______?

ptmd wrote:the specific properties of the film camera and projector, wouldn't work the same way on a video monitor

Well, firstly, we've never been talking about watching these on a video monitor, we've been talking about HD projection. Secondly, "the specific properties of the film camera" is an irrelevancy - the works were acquired on film, the specific properties of the film camera are captured within the negative, no means of projection is going to alter this. With regards, then, to the specific properties of a film projector, would you care to elaborate?

vogler wrote:The films of Michael Snow, or at least the ones I've seen, would actually be far less challenging as they are nowhere near as frenetic and dense as Brakhage's. This would apply even more to the films of James Benning that I've seen, all of which have been very slow in pace and almost entirely static.

Indeed. And, having being originated on 16mm, a Blu-Ray would capture far more of the original negative than, say, Criterion's Playtime Blu-Ray. But, of course, Playtime isn't real art, it has a narrative...

vogler wrote: The results, in many cases, would probably be able to maintain the majority of the intent of the original works. It can be such a valuable thing for people to have access to great works from art history. It promotes a love of art, inspires creativity and can be so beneficial to many people who otherwise would never have had a chance to experience these works

Agreed. It's just amazing to think that anyone doesn't agree.

Nothing wrote:But here we are again claiming that the work of Snow et al. is somehow impossible to capture on a format that represents the works of 99.999999% of all other filmmakers. The implication being - perhaps not from yourself, but certainly from others, including Snow and the fool Chodorov - that their work, due to it's lack of narrative, is somehow superior, more elusive, requires better treatment and greater respect.

That "we" seems odd, and it seems like you're putting words in people's mouths on a number of accounts. Please cite quotes from Chodorov, Snow, and any "others" who say that the presence or lack of a narrative per se is the deciding factor in whether a film can look passable on DVD. Given what you've just said, this is not an unreasonable request.
And you do yourself no credit with name-calling, especially of someone who is not a member here and cannot reply to you. If you really do not understand why VHS has some distinct benefits over DVD for certain types of films*, as your reaction suggests, then in my view this shows some revealing ignorance about the matter at hand. No offense intended.
*(And yes, there are valid distinctions to be made here, but as far as I know no one has said they have anything to do with superiority or narrative per se except yourself)

Nothing wrote:

ptmd wrote:the specific properties of the film camera and projector, wouldn't work the same way on a video monitor

Well, firstly, we've never been talking about watching these on a video monitor, we've been talking about HD projection.

On what basis do you assert that this is what we've been talking about? I already tried to address this issue once (second paragraph of my post at the top of this page) but you did not address it. Again, the discussion arose in regard to which directors' works Criterion is choosing to release, and they're releasing By Brakhage 2 on SD DVD to a public the vast majority of which is using a TV or other monitor.

16mm film distribution & projection. Maybe give it 10 years to be sure.

I'm not so sure about that. In a lot of respects, the situation looks worse than it did a decade ago but some filmmakers are pushing back, insisting that their 16mm films actually be shown on 16mm (and not on something like Betacam) and a number of venues that wanted to dump their 16mm projectors have relented. There's no question that 16mm has been a marginal medium since the 1980s, but the distribution organizations have held out a lot longer than many people predicted and most of the labs that were processing 16mm at the turn of the millennium are doing okay. Moreover, 16mm equipment is easier to get than ever, although parts could be a problem down the line. My answer to the question of what to do is to try to convince small non-commercial venues and colleges/universities to keep and maintain their projectors and to rent as many of these films as possible. The fact that important films like Wavelength are readily available at low cost only in that format is one of the strongest arguments for keeping that equipment functional and I know from personal experience that it holds some sway.

I want to make it clear, though, that I'm not arguing for the inherent superiority of avant-garde films over other types of cinema and I agree with you that films by people like Antonioni and Kubrick also lose an enormous amount on DVD. The fact that those prints are getting harder and harder to get hold of is very depressing and I'm grateful that major repertory organizations are able to keep things going as much as they do. As far as I can tell, though, everyone here is in agreement on this, so I don't understand the hostile reactions to imaginary elitism.

It also seems safe to say that we would all like to see films like Snow's screened as widely as possible, the only point of disagreement is whether or not the filmmakers' conditions with regard to format should be respected or not (it seems incredibly presumptuous to me to claim that the viewer has the "right" to see something). Snow feels that Wavelength needs to be seen projected properly on film rather than on video for a variety of reasons, some of them having to do with the quality of the image, some of them with the situation of watching a film in a darkened room where the perspective tunnel interrogated onscreen is matched by the inverse tunnel leading back from the screen to the projector. The possible future existence of superior digital equipment that can simulate the effect of flicker seems totally irrelevant to the decision of whether or not to put the films on DVD now as does the discussion of digital intermediates printed back to a film strip.

we've never been talking about watching these on a video monitor, we've been talking about HD projection

I'm very confused here, where did it become clear that we're talking about HD projection? I thought this whole discussion was about DVD releases, which are primarily intended for home viewing.

Look, Wavelength has managed to develop a solid reputation for itself as a 16mm film and it continues to be seen that way by people in many countries on a regular basis. The film has been photochemically preserved and is in no danger of disappearing for the foreseeable future, so can we just accept Snow's preferences on this and move on?

Gregory wrote: Please cite quotes from Chodorov, Snow, and any "others" who say that the presence or lack of a narrative per se is the deciding factor in whether a film can look passable on DVD.

Snow wrote:Chodorov, who is an American Filmmaker who was been living in Paris for about 10 to 15 years, convinced me against DVD because of the compression issues and he demonstrated this for me. Obviously for some things, narrative films, this would not be noticeable

Of course he then goes on into an argument about compressing single frames but, as previously discussed, the eye cannot isolate each individual frame when a film is projected at 24fps and DVD is still capable of approximating a representation of the work.

Gregory wrote:If you really do not understand why VHS has some distinct benefits over DVD for certain types of films*, as your reaction suggests, then in my view this shows some revealing ignorance about the matter at hand.

I'd love for you to elaborate on this... DVD has only one potential disadvantage - compression - but this can be overcome, or at least alleviated, even in fast-moving works, as the Brakhage set (or the Dardenne Brothers catalog) demonstrates.

Gregory wrote:On what basis do you assert that this is what we've been talking about? I already tried to address this issue once (second paragraph of my post at the top of this page) but you did not address it. Again, the discussion arose in regard to which directors' works Criterion is choosing to release, and they're releasing By Brakhage 2 on SD DVD to a public the vast majority of which is using a TV or other monitor.

Well, I don't know about you but I've only ever watched the Brakhage DVDs upscaled onto an HD projector in a darkened room. How other people decide to watch the discs is of course their own perogative - although, equally, I could rent out a 16mm print of Wavelength, drag it through a puddle and then project it out of focus, at 16fps, mute, onto a silver dollar in broad daylight. The latter being acceptable viewing conditions as far as Snow is concerned?

ptmd wrote:some filmmakers are pushing back, insisting that their 16mm films actually be shown on 16mm (and not on something like Betacam) and a number of venues that wanted to dump their 16mm projectors have relented.

That's all very well for the time being. I mean, I fear the demise of celluloid just like you, I hope that the rep houses can keep it going for ever, but ultimately digital technology is much cheaper and more practical, we live in a capitalistic global environment and market conditions will dictate. Once it reaches the point that spare parts are no longer available, because it is no longer commercially viable for any company to support the format, that will be the end of the discussion. 16mm projection equipment is easy to buy at the moment because venues are offloading, because it has no shelf life (remember the glut of cheap HD-DVD players this time last year)... Ironically, he only way to fight this is on market terms. Get these films out in front of as large an audience as possible (ie. DVD + internet download) and draw a large enough proportion of that audience along to subsequent 16mm screenings to justifying the continued existence of the format for a little while longer. Anyhow...

But the key point is the compression of all the frames, including those that actually make it on to the DVD. For Pip, and for some filmmakers, the inherent attributes of how the images look actually matters, and we are talking the subtlest of points - quality of light, density of image, and so forth. Whether the film has a narrative is not relevant.

I agree with you in regards to teh life span of 16mm, as sad as it makes me feel.

But I disagree with you on this:
'The implication being - perhaps not from yourself, but certainly from others, including Snow and the fool Chodorov - that their work, due to it's lack of narrative, is somehow superior, more elusive, requires better treatment and greater respect." It has nothing to do with the lack of narrative. it has to do with the fact that the films look different on video from how they do when projected on film, and that look, in all of its qualities and subtleties, is often the entire point of the film. They are not making films in the same mode as Kubrick etc. They are making works that are actually examining the nature of film/celluloid. I don't know of any experimental filmmaker (and I know a lot of them) who thinks of their work as somehow inherently superior to films done in narrative modes; they are simply making different kinds of work. And whereas most of the qualities that people draw from narrative films can be captured in a video replica of that film, much of what these particular experimental filmmakers find important in their works is not replicated in video. There are some qualities that are. And the filmmakers (where alive) have to decide where the balance falls. For example, I think the most important experimental aspects of Franpton's "Nostalgia" are all conveyed in the video version of it on Treasures IV. I actually think most of Wavelength's concerns would also be conveyed in video, although some might be lost. For Snow, this loss is too great.

Nothing, thank you for citing the quote you had in mind for the whole thing about narrative vs. non-narrative. I actually think he's using the term loosely in a way that would be understood from context what kinds of films he's saying the compression issues would be most problematic, and he then goes on to explicitly state that the crucial issue is whether a film relies on changes from frame to frame. No one could possibly believe that this is true of all non-narrative film.
However, just in case this comes across as hair-splitting or something, I would like to retract with apologies what I said about your seeming to put words in some people's mouths.
I disagree with your argument about not being able to consciously distinguish or "isolate" each individual frame at 24 fps, for reasons I've already given. This argument ignores any kind of cumulative effect and the largely subconscious psychological and physiological effects of all kinds of complex visual information. The fact that this can't be neatly, consciously, and simply nailed down is precisely what makes the films so interesting, or so I believe. But you're rehearsing the same argument that I and others have already tried to challenge.

DVD has only one potential disadvantage - compression - but this can be overcome, or at least alleviated, even in fast-moving works, as the Brakhage set (or the Dardenne Brothers catalog) demonstrates.

I don't think that set demonstrates anything of the kind, but I have no expectation that I'd be able to convince you of that. I have no idea which Dardennes films you're referring to, or what relevent properties of them you have in mind.

Well, I don't know about you but I've only ever watched the Brakhage DVDs upscaled onto an HD projector in a darkened room.

How you or I watch them is irrelevant when we're talking about filmmakers or DVD producers being concerns regarding how the discs will look to most viewers. But FYI I have seen the Brakhage discs on a 720p projection system with upscaling player, and I'm still very concerned about what I know I'm losing out on when I watch then this way. I'm grateful the by Brakhage set exists and all that, but I have no illusions about what it can and can't show me.

I could rent out a 16mm print of Wavelength, drag it through a puddle and then project it out of focus, at 16fps, mute, onto a silver dollar in broad daylight. The latter being acceptable viewing conditions as far as Snow is concerned?

Oh, of course.

Adam wrote:for Pip, and for some filmmakers, the inherent attributes of how the images look actually matters

And yet VHS is acceptable?

Adam wrote:we are talking the subtlest of points - quality of light, density of image, and so forth.

This matters to most narrative filmmakers and cinematographers too, certainly the good ones (to the extent that such things can be controlled - the projectionist and the projector always have final say over how a movie really looks in the theatre). Arguably, it is the avant-garde filmmakers who are shooting on rudimentary formats with rudimentary lighting / grip equipment and rudimentary photographic designs, in comparison to the precise and complex camera and lighting schemes of a John Alcott or a Carlo di Palma and, therefore, it is the latter for whom these concerns should be tantamount. I'm not necessarily making that argument, but it could be made. I will, however, venture that a Blu-Ray of either Wavelength or El Valley Centro would be a far closer approximation of the original than a Blu-Ray of Playtime or Lawrence of Arabia, because there is simply a lot less information in the negative (nor are there any likely compression problems).

Adam wrote:They are making works that are actually examining the nature of film/celluloid.

I wouldn't say this is true of Wavelength, nor any of the Benning films that I have seen, at least not in a material sense. Nor can I see much milleage in such a pursuit in isolation.

Gregory wrote:I have no idea which Dardennes films you're referring to, or what relevent properties of them you have in mind.

The camera is always shaking around in a Dardenne film, therefore a frame will often differ from the frame that preceeded it.

Gregory wrote:I'm still very concerned about what I know I'm losing out on when I watch then this way.

But, at the risk of repeating myself, this is true of all cinematic works. Even Carry on the Up Khyber: the DVD will be lacking in detail, latitude and colour space. That the film is probably not worth watching in any medium in another debate altogether.

Nothing wrote:I will, however, venture that a Blu-Ray of either Wavelength or El Valley Centro would be a far closer approximation of the original than a Blu-Ray of Playtime, because there is a lot less information in the negative and there is not a great deal of movement either (so no likely problems with compression).

I don't know what the maximum bitrate is for Blu-ray, but it seems to me that given Wavelength's medium-length running time it would theoretically be very straightforward to transfer it in such a way that compression issues would be minimised to the point where they scarcely matter. They'd certainly be far less of an issue than they were for the SD releases of Brakhage or Svankmajer's films, which were a major encoding headache. And if you scanned it frame by frame at 4K, you could be pretty certain of resolving all the information in the original - and can make sure that it's retained in the 2K reduction.

It would be interesting to hear the reaction of someone like Snow to the BFI's 16mm-sourced Blu-ray transfers (Jeff Keen, Nighthawks, Winstanley, the supporting shorts on the Flipside releases) - the resolution is enough to resolve the original grain structure with almost complete fidelity, in a way that it can't quite manage with 35mm. The Super 8 twin-screen films on the Jeff Keen Blu-ray are more impressive still, for the same reason.

But, at the risk of repeating myself, this is true of all cinematic works. Even Carry on the Up Khyber: the DVD will be lacking in detail, latitude and colour space. That the film is probably not worth watching in any medium in another debate altogether.

Well, not one worth having with someone whose reaction to the word "fun" is to put it in scare-quotes lest it contaminate the rest of the sentence. Were you the person in Gilbert Adair's mid-1980s NFT anecdote who chided him for laughing at Buster Keaton with the stern admonishment "it's not a comedy, it's a classic"?

Nothing wrote:But here we are again claiming that the work of Snow et al. is somehow impossible to capture on a format that represents the works of 99.999999% of all other filmmakers. The implication being - perhaps not from yourself, but certainly from others, including Snow and the fool Chodorov - that their work, due to it's lack of narrative, is somehow superior, more elusive, requires better treatment and greater respect. Vogler doesn't help matters when he talks about "the artform of avant-garde cinema". Avant-garde cinema is a sub-categorization of an artform, the artform being "cinema".

You simply made this all up yourself. The implication is not that it is superior etc. - the implication is simply that it is different. Many avant-garde films have a large number of properties that make it incredibly difficult to successfully encode them on DVD, particularly rapid cutting and the extensive use of single frame techniques. Films with very many layers of superimposition can also present difficulties due to the huge amount of visual information. Speak to Criterion about it and they will tell you what a huge challenge it was to encode the Brakhage films. You seem to have an idea in your head - that everyone involved in avant-garde cinema thinks they are superior etc. - and you seem to want to find evidence of your theory wherever you can.

Nothing wrote:Vogler doesn't help matters when he talks about "the artform of avant-garde cinema". Avant-garde cinema is a sub-categorization of an artform, the artform being "cinema".

This snipe at me is incredibly bizarre and nonsensical. Apart from the fact that I never even wrote "the artform of avant-garde cinema" are you trying to tell me that it's not an artform? No, wait, you just said cinema is an artform. I simply said avant-garde cinema is my own personal artform of choice. My artform of choice is not ALL CINEMA, it is avant-garde cinema (though the label itself is probably not doing us any favours - I've yet to find one that is perfect). Also I think there is often a misconception about avant-garde cinema. Many people would consider it another 'genre' of film-making, a sub-categorisation of the general artform of cinema, but often I think it has more in common with other artforms such as painting and sculpture. In fact many avant-garde films have come from people who are active in other visual arts, as an extension of these other artistic practices. For example the films of Man Ray and Fernand Léger have far more in common with their work in painting and other artforms than with narrative cinema. Many avant-garde film-makers approached film not with a desire to be involved in the artform of cinema in general, but more as artists with the thought 'I wonder what I can create using this medium of film'. In many cases the only similarity in approach is the use of the medium of film and the intentions are completely unrelated. It often makes more sense to consider experimental film an artform alongside others such as painting and sculpture allowing the films to be appreciated for their own visual, rhythmic, sonic and structural qualities without any expectations of narrative or even entertainment in any conventional sense. I'll stress here that none of this is about claiming avant-garde cinema is more important or in some way superior. What I am saying is that it is often fundamentally different in that it explores the possibilities of film as an art in its own right, detatched from the disciplines of literature and theatre. I see no reason why you should find this so objectionable.

My own personal belief is that all creativity is one, regardless of the form it takes. I draw no distinction between my activities in film, experimental forms of music and other visual arts. Of course there are technical and aesthetic differences, but in actual fact it is all a part of one imagination and one will to create. With regards to my films I actually consider them to be far closer to music than any other form of art - I compose them in exactly the same way as my music, even using conventional and unconventional forms of musical notation. The difference is that the rhythms are created visually using varying intensities of light and the timbres are colours and textures created through cinematography and various other film processes. They are my visual compositions which come directly out of my practices as a musician and composer.

I'm used to being attacked for the type of films I create, and I'm sure the film-makers we are discussing in this thread are/were too. It doesn't particularly bother me but I've always been baffled by it. I've never claimed to be superior in any way but people still manage to draw this conclusion - presumably because they want to, for some reason. It's easy to find evidence for a conclusion that you actively want to arrive at.

EDIT: As a small addition to this post I'll just say that I don't generally use the term "avant-garde film" and I'm not entirely sure why I have here. Instead I usually opt for the term "experimental film", although both terms have their drawbacks and potential negative connotations.

I think the most bitterly ironic thing about this topic of conversation here is that it's clearly Nothing that feels that Avant-Garde filmmaking is inferior to other forms (ones that he likes). This debate began with him insisting that certain filmmakers were more deserving than other filmmakers at having their work represented through cinema projection:

Nothing wrote:Btw, I've projected my Brakhage DVDs and seen Brakhage projected and there isn't a huge difference, quite frankly. Both are 2D projections, so the "photographs in a book" analogy doesn't stand up. Of course, there is a difference in resolution, latitude and colour space, a gap which a Blu-Ray would help to close further. But the high-end 35mm cinematography of a Kubrick or Antonioni actually benefits far more from watching a real print.

After this, everyone contributing to the thread attempted to ask Nothing to justify the statement, even illustrating why certain aspects of these filmmakers aesthetics might make them more appropriate for DVD viewing than the films of some Avant-Garde filmmakers (this goes on repeatedly throughout the rest of the thread).

Nothings reply was an attempt to deride the films of Brakhage by calling them "Semi-amatuer" and paint-splattered.

Nothing wrote:Perhaps I was needling you a little on Brakhage in rejoinder, but "paint-splattered" and "semi-amateur" are words that do apply to many, if not all, his films - without necessarily implying any kind of value judgement.

The implication? When asked to clarify by Gregory:

Gregory wrote:4) Trivial, but I'm curious: if you did not mean "amateur" or "semi-amateur" as a put-down, then what was the point in using it as a qualification in your description of Brakhage's films?

Nothing chose not to respond. Then, after a childish kerfuffle between Nothing and myself the thread began an actual sustainable dialogue. Then Nothing chimed in again with this gem:

Nothing wrote:How many up and coming filmmakers have even heard of, let alone been inspired by, Snow or Connor - as opposed to the Coen Bros, Tarantino, etc...? Fight the fight! Don't withdraw into your tiny little niche, mumbling that you're better than everybody else.

Tiny little niche? Mumbling? I attend hundreds of "underground" festivals each year. Sometimes it's to present my own work, sometimes it's just to throw down with some filmmakers. I meet literally thousands of people a year who are inspired by Snow, Connor, Anger, Jack Chambers and the like. There is no attitude of superiority at these fests. (I think it's worth mentioning that I also meet quite a few filmmakers who build their own projectors from scratch. Sometime even creating their own replacement parts. These people also tend to make/develop their own film in the bath tub. I've even met filmmakers who make their own cameras. Just because you can't buy it at a K-Mart doesn't mean it's completely gone.) Fight the fight? What fight? Where? I think the clear implication here (since this thread seems to love implications) is that "underground" filmmaking is not "real" filmmaking. It's not precise and doesn't have complex lighting setups:

Nothing wrote:Arguably, it is the avant-garde filmmakers who are shooting on rudimentary formats with rudimentary lighting / grip equipment and rudimentary photographic designs, in comparison to the precise and complex camera and lighting schemes of a John Alcott or a Carlo di Palma and, therefore, it is the latter for whom these concerns should be tantamount. I'm not necessarily making that argument, but it could be made.

Yes. You've been attempting to make the argument for the entirety of this conversation (look above) So what are you implying? That avant-garde filmmakers aren't (or cannot be) precise and complex? If you're not making the argument (which you are... or at least you've attempted to), why are saying that you COULD be making the argument? Let's test this (yet again): Make the argument.

I have a suspicion that Nothing doesn't actually believe anything he is stating in these threads:

Nothing wrote:But here we are again claiming that the work of Snow et al. is somehow impossible to capture on a format that represents the works of 99.999999% of all other filmmakers.

HOLY POOP! What format is this?!? Can you substantiate this math? How can I get my hands on some of these movies!?!? Wow! even if it were 80% or say, 70% (Heck, even 60%) I'd be stoked about this new magical format. But 99%? That's almost 100%!!! Wow! I can't wait to get my hands on all these movies! Wow! Great news. Seriously great news.

planetjake wrote:I have a suspicion that Nothing doesn't actually believe anything he is stating in these threads:

I have wondered if he could be saying these things simply to provoke a reaction. Either way it's not all bad - this thread has made me think about things I may not have done otherwise and clarify my thoughts by writing them down. This can never be a bad thing. I'm sure everyone involved with experimental cinema has heard much worse than this in any case. Hell, Brakhage heard much worse from no less than Andrei Tarkovsky!

For me experimental film has always been such a postive thing - the creation of it, the viewing, and the critical and philosophical thought that goes with it - so I find it strange to see it turned into such a negative.

vogler wrote:Many avant-garde films have a large number of properties that make it incredibly difficult to successfully encode them on DVD, particularly rapid cutting and the extensive use of single frame techniques.

Okay. I can concede that films employing single-frame techniques pose a particular problem when compressing in the mpeg2 standard. Although I disagree that VHS yields better results and I believe that the Brakhage DVDs, whilst not perfect, do demonstrate that the two things are not mutually exclusive with enough trial and effort. You may recall, however, that the specific films I was talking about at the beginning of this - the films I'd like to see initially from Criterion and/or the BFI - are Wavelength and the El Valley Centro Trilogy, neither of which uses single-frame techniques and neither of which would be especially difficult to encode on DVD (even less so on Blu-Ray).

vogler wrote:This snipe at me is incredibly bizarre and nonsensical. Apart from the fact that I never even wrote "the artform of avant-garde cinema" are you trying to tell me that it's not an artform? No, wait, you just said cinema is an artform. I simply said avant-garde cinema is my own personal artform of choice. My artform of choice is not ALL CINEMA, it is avant-garde cinema(though the label itself is probably not doing us any favours - I've yet to find one that is perfect). Also I think there is often a misconception about avant-garde cinema. Many people would consider it another 'genre' of film-making, a sub-categorisation of the general artform of cinema, but often I think it has more in common with other artforms such as painting and sculpture. In fact many avant-garde films have come from people who are active in other visual arts, as an extension of these other artistic practices.

It's not a snipe, and it's extremely tangential to the point, but I'm afraid you're just plain incorrect: avant-garde cinema IS a sub-categorisation of cinema. You are shooting moving images with a camera and projecting them in a cinema, what else would you call it? To try and create such an artificial devision denies the free flow of ideas. eg. Wavelength contains elements of the narrative crime drama (man dies, lady calls emergency services, emergency services approach). James Benning's use of static takes with multiple points of visual interest owes something of a debt to Playtime, whilst the pastoral elements are reminiscent of Dovzhenko. Abbas Kiarostami moves calmly between narrative (Taste of Cherry) and avant-garde (Five) and something inbetween (Ten). Is Godard a narrative filmmaker or an avant-garde filmmaker? Are not the climaxes of Zabriskie Point, L'Eclisse & 2001 the most influential avant-garde sequences ever committed to film? Ultimately, then, what use are such categorizations at all, other than to box things in and deny possibility?

vogler wrote:it explores the possibilities of film as an art in it's own right, detatched from the disciplines of literature and theatre.

This was Bresson's intention precisely, I suggest you read Notes sur le cinématographe.

nothing via planetjake wrote:But the high-end 35mm cinematography of a Kubrick or Antonioni actually benefits far more from watching a real print.

And I still stand by this (rare issues of compression aside). A 70mm negative has approximately 3x as much information as a 35mm negative which has 4x as much information as a 16mm negative. Therefore, it makes logical sense that a Blu-Ray of Playtime is losing more information than a Blu-Ray of Il Desserto Rosso which is losing more information than a (hypothetical) Blu-Ray of Wavelength. Indeed, as MB has already pointed out, the Blu-Ray of Wavelength is the only one that would fully preserve the grain structure of the original.

Re: Brakhage, no, perhaps I don't regard him quite as highly as some others around here. The greatest film of his that I've seen (a truly great film) is Window Water Baby Moving - but this is, of course, a narrative film, a film that deals with ideas in conjunction with aesthetics, and it is the subject of the film that lends it it's greatest power, not the special chemical he splattered onto the negative afterwards. Benning, on the other hand, I regard as a cinematic genius - and a true cinematographer - in the most elemental of terms. El Valley Centro works better than Sogobi, however, because it contains more ideas, more incident, because it has a more clearly defined (and rigorously explored) subject...

planetjake wrote:Fight the fight? What fight? Where?

The domination of corporate, anti-artistic modes of image making. This was a response to Gregory's comments on the topic earlier.

Nothing wrote:

vogler wrote:This snipe at me is incredibly bizarre and nonsensical. Apart from the fact that I never even wrote "the artform of avant-garde cinema" are you trying to tell me that it's not an artform? No, wait, you just said cinema is an artform. I simply said avant-garde cinema is my own personal artform of choice. My artform of choice is not ALL CINEMA, it is avant-garde cinema(though the label itself is probably not doing us any favours - I've yet to find one that is perfect). Also I think there is often a misconception about avant-garde cinema. Many people would consider it another 'genre' of film-making, a sub-categorisation of the general artform of cinema, but often I think it has more in common with other artforms such as painting and sculpture. In fact many avant-garde films have come from people who are active in other visual arts, as an extension of these other artistic practices.

It's not a snipe, and it's extremely tangential to the point, but I'm afraid you're just plain incorrect: avant-garde cinema IS a sub-categorisation of cinema. You are shooting moving images with a camera and projecting them in a cinema, what else would you call it? To try and create such an artificial devision denies the free flow of ideas. eg. Wavelength contains elements of the narrative crime drama (man dies, lady calls emergency services, emergency services approach). James Benning's use of static takes with multiple points of visual interest owes something of a debt to Playtime, whilst the pastoral elements are reminiscent of Dovzhenko. Abbas Kiarostami moves calmly between narrative (Taste of Cherry) and avant-garde (Five) and something in between (Ten). Is Godard a narrative filmmaker or an avant-garde filmmaker? Are not the climaxes of Zabriskie Point, L'Eclisse & 2001 the most influential avant-garde sequences ever committed to film? Ultimately, then, what use are such categorizations at all, other than to box things in and deny possibility?

vogler wrote:it explores the possibilities of film as an art in it's own right, detatched from the disciplines of literature and theatre.

This was Bresson's intention precisely, I suggest you read Notes sur le cinématographe.

nothing via planetjake wrote:But the high-end 35mm cinematography of a Kubrick or Antonioni actually benefits far more from watching a real print.

I would argue that much avant-garde cinema IS actually NOT a sub-categorisation of cinema, but is actually in line with other arts (painting, photography) using moving pictures & cinematic apparatus. Its aesthetic concerns are closer to those more commonly explored in gallery spaces, museums, and the like.

Other avant-garde films work with narrative structures & more common commercial cinematic expression, often to attempt to subvert them or to try to bring out the underlying assumptions of commercial cinema.

But I would also like to see Wavelength on Blu-Ray and hear whether Snow might then change his mind. It's not inconceivable.

I also think you might be right in saying that the end of 2001 is "the most influential avant-garde film" sequence ever, but it is a sequence and not a whole film. Kubrick did originally approach avant-garde filmmaker Ed Emshwiller to help him realize the sequence (Emshwiller ultimately declined). But Zabriskie Point? I don't really think of that as avant-garde. Others might. Many narrative features have avant-garde influenced sequences (Fincher, Lynch, Antonioni, and more have used them), but I have chosen to not classify those films as avant-garde. But I am aware that I might well be needlessly classifying things in a way that might prove a disservice by pigeonholing, and I try to fight that habit.

Nothing wrote:Although I disagree that VHS yields better results

Although you certainly don't disagree with me over that point since I agree with you (you probably realise this though). I can't stand VHS. We’re also partly in agreement over the fact that we’d like to see more avant-garde films on DVD and we feel that the majority would probably hold up better in the digital realm than a lot of people think (although obviously they’d be far from perfect). However I think the crucial point is that Snow and other film-makers are not preventing certain films from being released on DVD out of some kind of elitist, superior mentality. Rather they are concerned that the films would lose many of their essential characteristics and therefore their impact. Whether you, or I, or anyone else agree or disagree with their decisions is another matter.

vogler wrote:You are shooting moving images with a camera and projecting them in a cinema, what else would you call it?

Well in the case of Brakhage, and many other film-makers who paint directly on film, they are not shooting images through a camera. Rather they are creating something akin to abstract expressionist painting, directly on the film stock. But you are correct that the boundaries are very much blurred between experimental and narrative in many cases, which is I why I was very careful to use words and phrases such as often and closer to rather than any absolutes. When I made this post I did have Jean Epstein and the French Impressionists in mind and was thinking of prior discussions about what constitutes avant-garde cinema. There are, however, many film-makers who have no interest in narrative whatsoever (in terms of their own film-making that is). Considering these works purely in relation to conventional notions of what constitutes cinema, simply because they happen to be created using the physical medium of film, is often nowhere near as useful as considering their relationship to, and perhaps basis in, other art forms such as painting, sculpture and music.

Perhaps the term 'cinema' can be a categorisation that denies possibility. Can creative work not reach entirely beyond these boundaries, that are defined purely on the basis of the technical medium, to the imagination that is behind it all? Can a film not be considered music as much as it can be considered cinema, if it features all the rhythmical and structural elements of a musical composition, only using light instead of sound? If its textures and colours are used as would be musical timbres, and its interactions of dense and varied visuals flow like the sounds of an intricate amalgam of jazz composition and improvisation? Even if you think not, would it still perhaps be best to attempt an understanding of the work based on musical concepts rather than cinematic ones? What if I were to take a reel of blank film and scratch directly on the optical soundtrack to create a rhythmic, pulsing musical track - if I then projected this film in a cinema would it be film, cinema or music? It would, by definition, be a film yet it would have no image. Can cinema be cinema with no visual component? I have many questions but not many answers, but I do know that my own creative output at least, is not entirely divided up into separate creative endeavours in the artforms of cinema, painting and music - rather it is a continuum of creativity that flows through all of these mediums with many of the same characteristics in each. The medium is of far lesser importance than the concepts that occur throughout the work.

Nothing wrote:

vogler wrote:it explores the possibilities of film as an art in it's own right, detatched from the disciplines of literature and theatre.

This was Bresson's intention precisely, I suggest you read Notes sur le cinématographe.

I know very little about Bresson's intentions and perhaps I may read the text you mention, but it would seem that his idea of the exclusion of literature and theatre (within the context of narrative cinema) must be very different to mine. I'm talking about the complete absence of all theatrical concepts of acting, narrative, scriptwriting, storytelling etc. - as far removed from theatre as a Jackson Pollock painting.

---Edited to fix errors that might inhibit understanding.---

Saying Avant-Garde Cinema is not an individual artform because it's a subsection of a larger artform, Cinema, is the equivalent of saying poetry, or drama, or the novel, is not an artform because it is a subsection of a larger artform, literature. Both claims are equally illogical.

Perhaps avant-garde cinema doesn't classify as an individual artform, but if so, it definitely has nothing to do with being a subsection.

Adam wrote:I would argue that much avant-garde cinema IS actually NOT a sub-categorisation of cinema, but is actually in line with other arts (painting, photography) using moving pictures & cinematic apparatus. Its aesthetic concerns are closer to those more commonly explored in gallery spaces, museums, and the like.

But you're making categorizations based on value judgements rather than the obvious technical realities. Film/cinema is simply a medium, just like painting or sculpture. what you chose to do with it is completely irrelevent. No-one would try to argue that abastract-expressionist painting is "more like sculpture that painting" just because it lacks a clear human subject.

vogler wrote:is often nowhere near as useful as considering their relationship to, and perhaps basis in, other art forms such as painting, sculpture and music.

I'm not forbiding comparison or consideration of the relationships between a film work and work in another medium. Such comparison, such similarity in some regards, perhaps, does not transform it anything different. Unless you're talking about something like Lynch's "Six People Getting Sick", which did actually, in it's original incarnation, combine cinema with sculpture (therefore a "multi-media work").

vogler wrote:Well in the case of Brakhage, and many other film-makers who paint directly on film, they are not shooting images through a camera. Rather they are creating something akin to abstract expressionist painting, directly on the film stock.

You can't run a piece of film actually caked in dead moths through a projector - the images have been re-photographed. This technique is called animation.

vogler wrote:Can creative work not reach entirely beyond these boundaries, that are defined purely on the basis of the technical medium, to the imagination that is behind it all?

No-one's stopping you from combining mediums (eg. projecting an image onto a sculpture, as in the Lynch work). At least, I'm not stopping you...

vogler wrote:Can cinema be cinema with no visual component?

No. The work you describe still has a conceived visual component (the look of the undeveloped print stock running through the project) no-matter how mundane and useless this may be. If, however, you only played back the optical soundtrack then it would be an audio work.

sausage wrote:Saying Avant-Garde Cinema is not an individual artform because it's a subsection of a larger artform, Cinema, is the equivalent of saying poetry, or drama, or the novel, is not an artform because it is a subsection of a larger artform, literature. Both claims are equally illogical.

Whereas saying that poetry isn't literature (the equivalent of the claims being made here) would, of course, be completely logical... Further, yours is a false analogy because poetry frequently contains narrative. The division between poetry and prose (itself perhaps a dubious one) is related, rather, to the structuring of phrases, the meter, the rhythm. No such division exists between narrative and non-narrative cinema, cinema being a visual medium in which all forms of cinematic language are both possible and acceptable.

Nothing wrote:

Adam wrote:I would argue that much avant-garde cinema IS actually NOT a sub-categorisation of cinema, but is actually in line with other arts (painting, photography) using moving pictures & cinematic apparatus. Its aesthetic concerns are closer to those more commonly explored in gallery spaces, museums, and the like.

But you're making categorizations based on value judgements rather than the obvious technical realities. Film/cinema is simply a medium, just like painting or sculpture. what you chose to do with it is completely irrelevent. No-one would try to argue that abastract-expressionist painting is "more like sculpture that painting" just because it lacks a clear human subject.

vogler wrote:Well in the case of Brakhage, and many other film-makers who paint directly on film, they are not shooting images through a camera. Rather they are creating something akin to abstract expressionist painting, directly on the film stock.

You can't run a piece of film actually caked in dead moths through a projector - the images have been re-photographed. This technique is called animation.

No, it's called optical printing or re-photography. I wouldn't call it animation. But that is a semantic debate which probably isn't productive.

But to the first reply, I would argue that you are doing the same. What you do with the medium is entirely relevant - that is the point. And of course this is based on my value judgments; so are your points. I understand that what you are saying is that your classification system is based on the "technical realities" - shall we say the "technology" being used? My counterpoint is that that is not the most interesting classification system, nor the most useful one when it comes to avant-garde film. And I think that positing avant-garde film in those terms is often what leads to the frustration that many viewers have when first encountering experimental film, because they first try to compare it to other film-going experiences due to the shared technology (particularly projection in a darkened room, as so many experimental films are made without cameras). However, I am specifically arguing that it would more appropriate for new viewers to be introduced to experimental films with an explanation that they would find it more useful to view it not in those terms.

It is more complicated than that, of course, as many experimental films are directly addressing the technology of filmmaking. Good ones tend to do so with wit, beauty, and a sense of humor.

[My apologies for my use of "avant-garde" and "experimental" in an interchangeable manner.]

You can't run a piece of film actually caked in dead moths through a projector - the images have been re-photographed.

Actually, they haven't been. Mothlight consists of moth wings and bits of plants laid on a transparent, thin strip of 16mm celluloid with glue on one side that was then covered by two layers of perforated Mylar editing tape and printed for projection. The lack of recorded imagery resulted in an absence of frames, but by carefully placing the dead moths, leaves, and seeds in between the sprocket holes on the sides of the celluloid strip, Brakhage was able to simulate their effect. Brakhage wasn't the only one to work without a camera directly on the film strip (Len Lye and Norman McLaren both experimented with this in the 1930s), but he's certainly the one who took it furthest.

As for the larger questions raised here, I have to say that some of these distinctions seem rather forced to me. Avant-garde cinema (i.e., avant-garde films/videos that are run through some sort of projector when presented) is a type of cinema and, like all forms of cinema, it's informed by the various other arts. Obviously, there are strong affinities between avant-garde cinema and the visual arts, but there are often equally strong affinities with poetry and literature. Brakhage, for example, spoke much more often about Gertrude Stein than he did about Jackson Pollock and they both influenced his work. Frampton was close friends with Carl Andre, but he sometimes said his biggest influences were James Joyce and Ezra Pound. Meanwhile, there are people like Pasolini, who actually was a poet and a novelist, but who also studied art history with one of the pre-eminent scholars of his day (Roberto Longhi) and whose narrative feature films are informed by this in all sorts of ways. All great filmmakers of whatever kind integrate influences from different sources (and mediums) in their work; it's just a question of the degree to which different influences inflect a particular practice.

Nothing wrote:Further, yours is a false analogy because poetry frequently contains narrative. The division between poetry and prose (itself perhaps a dubious one) is related, rather, to the structuring of phrases, the meter, the rhythm. No such division exists between narrative and non-narrative cinema, cinema being a visual medium in which all forms of cinematic language are both possible and acceptable.

Whether poetry contains narrative or not is neither here nor there, not to mention the above argument is incomprehensible given that poetry was one of three equivalent choices, two of which (novels and plays) contain narrative.

My analogy, anyway, cannot be false for the simple reason that your claim (that subsections of an artform cannot be themselves an individual artform) is abstract and a generalization, so it either works with all art or no art. You cannot make specific claims using as your base a general principle and then turn around and claim any unflattering analogies spurious when someone bothers to actually start applying your general principle.

Adam + sausage wrote:What you do with the medium is entirely relevant - that is the point... the above argument is incomprehensible

A Caravaggio is a painting and a Pollock is a painting. Poetry and prose are sub-categorizations within the medium of literature. Avant-garde cinema and arthouse cinema are sub-categorizations within the medium of film. How could this be any easier to understand?

The problem -

Adam wrote:My counterpoint is that that is not the most interesting classification system, nor the most useful one when it comes to avant-garde film

- even though you're so vociferously keen to deny it, is that you want to create this false categorization whereby avant-garde cinema is "art" and narrative cinema is "entertainment", no matter than many avant-garde works contain narrative elements and vice-versa, no matter that they are both fashioned in the same medium. Of course, you are just following the lead of Brakhage, Snow, etc, in trying to assert this self-serving fallacy. But no-one has answered my earlier questions - ie. is Godard an avant-garde filmmaker or a narrative filmmaker? Is Window Water Baby Moving a narrative film or an avant-garde film? - because the answer to these questions, of course, is "both" - these two things exist simultaneously within the cinematic work of Godard, within the Brakhage film in question - and, yet, these are single medium works, not multi-media works, therefore the boundary clearly does not exist.

Re: Mothlight, as ptmd implies (nothing in that post I could disagree with), I think ultimately what defines the work is that it is intended to be viewed as a moving image. Modern computer animations (Pixar, Waltz with Bashir, etc) do not involve photography either. If, however, Brakhage intended the film strips to be viewed physically, if they were not intended for projection, THEN it would cease to be cinema, then it would become collage.

p.s. Sausage - if you really believe that 'avant-garde cinema' is a different medium from 'cinema' then you better find another board in which to locate this thread!!

Oh no! My browser ate my post. I'll try again.

Nothing wrote:The problem -

Adam wrote:My counterpoint is that that is not the most interesting classification system, nor the most useful one when it comes to avant-garde film

- even though you're so vociferously keen to deny it, is that you want to create this false categorization whereby avant-garde cinema is "art" and narrative cinema is "entertainment", no matter than many avant-garde works contain narrative elements and vice-versa, no matter that they are both fashioned in the same medium.

I'm certain that there are many problems, but I don't believe the one you cite is one of them. Nobody (that I know of) is trying to “create this false categorization whereby avant-garde cinema is "art" and narrative cinema is "entertainment"“ - both forms can very much be art if that is their intention. In addition, if we forget the connotations of the word 'entertainment' as relating to popular commercial entertainment, which are so often perceived as negative, then all art is essentially entertainment and always has been, or at least I can't currently think of a work of art that doesn't entertain in some sense.

Of course I am considering experimental/avant-garde film/cinema a form of film/cinema hence my use of the terms. The argument is that experimental film is, in many cases, a very different art form, and that its artistic intentions in these cases bear no relation to narrative forms of cinema. This does of course depend on the film-maker in question. By extension it is far more useful to consider these works in line with the other arts that form their basis. For me the artistic intent is far more important than a categorisation based on the technical medium.

I agree with Adam that viewers comparing experimental films to their other film-going experiences is often the cause of much frustration and misunderstanding. If these viewers would let go of their notions of what constitutes ‘cinema’ and consider the works in terms of the other arts with which they may be closely connected, or as their own form of art, then the viewing experience would be a much richer one. But then in other cases it may be more useful to consider experimental films from a narrative standpoint, for example if we think of the early stages of the American avant-garde when it was largely rooted in the ‘psychodrama’ form.

Nothing wrote:

vogler wrote:Can cinema be cinema with no visual component?

No. The work you describe still has a conceived visual component (the look of the undeveloped print stock running through the project) no-matter how mundane and useless this may be. If, however, you only played back the optical soundtrack then it would be an audio work.

But does the artistic intent make a difference? What if the same work was created by a composer, with no interest in cinema, but a strong interest in the possibilities of the optical strip as a means toward sound generation? The intention of the work would be purely musical. Would the visual component of “the look of the undeveloped print stock” still make this a cinematic work even if it was not a conceived visual component, but merely a by-product of the medium?

ptmd wrote:Brakhage, for example, spoke much more often about Gertrude Stein than he did about Jackson Pollock and they both influenced his work.

I couldn't comment on the frequency with which Brakhage spoke about either artist but it is certainly true that he had many literary inspirations and these no doubt had an effect on his work. At other times, and I would say more importantly, he was also trying to explore the possibilities of the act of vision “before the 'beginning was the word.’” Ultimately I think his goal was to try to reach visuals rooted purely in “the unnameable”.

A quote from Brakhage:

My work now primarily has to do with being able to exteriorize moving visual thought processes - that is, thinking that isn't locked into language, to words or symbols or other categorical imperatives of the left brain. There is a visual, unnameable, non-referential form of thinking, which, if it refers to anything - and I believe it does - has internal reference and is a reference to one's being. To achieve well-being, you have to have a way to converse with you own nervous system.· for the two hemispheres of the brain to converse with each other.

Nothing wrote:But no-one has answered my earlier questions - ie. is Godard an avant-garde filmmaker or a narrative filmmaker?

I suppose he's an avant-garde narrative film-maker - unless he's working in a non-narrative format.

Nothing wrote:these are single medium works, not multi-media works, therefore the boundary clearly does not exist.

I think the boundary is between narrative and non-narrative film, but I'm specifically talking about experimental non-narrative film. This could perhaps be termed 'abstract film', but that opens the discussion of what exactly qualifies as 'abstract'.

Ultimately I think his goal was to try to reach visuals rooted purely in “the unnameable”.

That's certainly true, it's just a question of how he got there. To cite one of the best examples, Brakhage said that his Visions in Meditation (1989-1990), probably his most powerfully realized example of "moving visual thinking", was partially an homage to Stein, whose "Stanzas in Meditation" were a huge influence on him and it includes another chapter titled after D.H. Lawrence. Brakhage was also deeply informed by painting from Church and Turner to Sam Francis and Rauschenberg and his study of music from Bach to Messiaen, but my point is simply that he pulled things from all the arts and continued to do so until the end of his life.

ptmd wrote:but my point is simply that he pulled things from all the arts and continued to do so until the end of his life.

Also certainly true. Have you listened to Brakhage's 20 radio shows called The Test of Time that are available on ubuweb? Through the course of these 20 broadcasts he shows an incredible depth of knowledge across all the arts. I particularly enjoyed his coverage of a huge and diverse range of musical forms. It really is an amazing listen.

Nothing wrote:p.s. Sausage - if you really believe that 'avant-garde cinema' is a different medium from 'cinema' then you better find another board in which to locate this thread!!

No, I don't "really" believe other people's straw-man arguments. (Mediums were not the subject of my posts, and are not interesting anyway since what gets branded as such is arbitrary since the word simply denotes a "means or channel of communication or expression")

I'll take your evasion to mean you cannot answer my challenge.