Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

[Nothing]

I think you're willfully missing the point, Michael. No matter how profitable the BFI's wider DVD business may or may not be, the fact is that no truly commercial entity could justify an inherently unprofitable release such as the films of Jeff Keen on Blu-Ray. Look at Artificial Eye or Masters of Cinema, as you yourself have pointed out. Take Criterion, even - they have a much larger territory, a much larger following, they shift far more units per title and, yet, even they are extremely selective about what gets the upgrade. Neither Brakhage anthology is getting a Blu-Ray from Criterion, even though Brakhage is a far larger name than Keen.

[MichaelB]

I think you're willfully missing the point, Michael. No matter how profitable the BFI's wider DVD business may or may not be, the fact is that no truly commercial entity could justify an inherently unprofitable release such as the films of Jeff Keen on Blu-Ray. Look at Artificial Eye or Masters of Cinema, as you yourself have pointed out.

Both distributors have released several titles that more than justify the label "inherently unprofitable" - just look at MoC's latest, an obscure Godard title with an 80-page book that was a labour of love that apparently took nine months to assemble. Or Artificial Eye's Sátántangó, a three-disc release of a seven-hour black-and-white Hungarian film that was previously all but unknown in Britain (screened twice, I think).

Don't get me wrong - I'm not denying that the BFI has certain advantages regarding upfront risk-taking, not least the fact that ambitious/risky projects can be spread across many different outlets and media. But it isn't remotely missing the point to say that your claim that they have "no obligation to conform to market realities" is flat-out absurd. Put it like this, if the head of DVD Publishing used that excuse to justify missing sales targets, he'd be out on his ear - and quite rightly.

Take Criterion, even - they have a much larger territory, a much larger following, they shift far more units per title and, yet, even they are extremely selective about what gets the upgrade. Neither Brakhage anthology is getting a Blu-Ray from Criterion, even though Brakhage is a far larger name than Keen.

Criterion's approach to Blu-ray has generally been pretty conservative - more of a cautious dip into unfamiliar waters than a wholehearted plunge. But that's always been true of that company - remember how long it took them to add anamorphic enhancement?

[Nothing]

You can't compare Blu-ray and DVD releases, I don't have the figures to hand but the market for Blu-Ray is still much much smaller. Beyond this, Godard and Tarr are huge names compared to Keen, and Satantango is widely regarded as the most important film of the 90s, however few UK screenings it has received. I'm also sure they've shifted many units of Satantango far beyond the shores of the UK, given that their edition is superior to - and cheaper - than the Facets.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing that the BFI can release insanely obscure Blu-rays (the recent Richard Lester being another!), but you know... speaking of which, a friend has been saying to me: what about Il Gattopardo?

[foggy eyes]

Mark Webber's review of the Treasures IV set has some interesting things to say about the exhibition/distribution argument that has consumed this thread. I'm particularly intrigued by the last comment:

A historical problem that has led to a lack of understanding and exposure of independent artists’ cinema has been the invisibility of the work. This absence could be attributed to several factors: the scarcity of good exhibition prints and the constitutional passivity of distribution collectives, the accumulative cost of rental fees and shipping (considerable for screenings of multiple works) which restricts programming, the lack of serious commitment from exhibiting institutions, and the weight of impenetrable theoretical writing against almost non-existent coverage in the popular media.

Changes are taking place as film leaves the academy for the art world and new technologies develop. The commercial availability of these films was something unimaginable 10-15 years ago, and though the format is compromised when compared to the experience afforded by good quality cinema presentation, it is hopefully balanced by increased access, and the potential for quick reference or repeated viewings. This proliferation is in step with the current desperation to have everything on demand, and unfortunately it is that convenience that makes it harder to appreciate the value in something.

We can’t, and probably shouldn’t, attempt to hold back the tide. It may be optimistic to assume that this increased accessibility will encourage more people to attend screenings and see works as originally intended. Cinema projection (on film) may become even more of a specialist pursuit but will likely survive as the only way to appreciate the essential qualities of such work, and as a preservation material ‘analogue’ film remains significantly more durable than any digital format.

[colinr0380]

It is an interesting argument. Releasing films on home video formats may compromise the 'purity' of the theatrical image but it might at the same time build understanding and recognition among the audience who might otherwise not attend a theatrical screening for many reasons (lack of awareness, unwilling to pay a high ticket price, difficulty of reaching limited and not widely publicised screenings). At least with home video it would work to give people a taster of the theatrical experience (along with the only chance people from outlying territories will ever have of experiencing such films), while emphasising that it is a pale shadow of the 'true' experience.

The other aspect brought up, as I think Jonathan Rosenbaum talked about once in one of his columns, is how this affects the critical reputation of, and received wisdom about, a canon of work (e.g. if the only Ozu available was Floating Weeds and not Tokyo Story would the reputation of one be considered higher than another - or if Story of Floating Weeds was the only silent Ozu available for home viewing would that come to be considered the silent Ozu film over and above the others?)

It might be quite frightening for critics who have staked their reputations on telling the general public about how one film in particular is the masterpiece of a career, or encapsulates everything about an artist, to then have this work more widely available and finding their comments being challenged. It might also be frightening for artists themselves to suddenly find their reputations being suddenly buffeted by a wider range of opinions. That is the problem with inclusivity, I suppose!

This is probably even more troubling with regard to non-narrative, experimental or avant garde film which can depend a lot on the meaning an audience member brings to it to decide whether it is a 'success' or 'failure' in those limited terms.

Then add to that the lack of education or fostering of interest in such items that would enable audiences to build up the critical facilities to understand and place them in context (or at least appreciate why they feel something does not work for them!) As well as a sense (however justified or misguided) of protection of the work and the artist from the non-understanding outsiders allied to inaccessibility increasing worth and a sense of mystique.

The most interesting idea the Treasures avant-garde set raises is the decision to make accessible the more obscure works by major filmmakers - maybe as an experiment in seeing how this affects thinking on this subject? (Or at least a gratefully accepted approach that emphasises the more overlooked works and tries to widen the access to, and themes of, the debate a little)

[Matt]

Hey - who just fucking removed those posts from the Stanley Kubrick thread? Sausage?

Nope. Wasn't me.

It was me. One toxic thread is enough, so those posts were moved into this thread.

[MichaelB]

I'd probably best not name him, given ongoing litigation, but I know of at least one filmmaker who deliberately held back from suing people who claimed to represent his work until after a comprehensive DVD was released, because he thought it was more important that the work was out there.

Presumably if his litigation is successful he'll receive backdated dues anyway, so it seems a pretty sensible move - and if he doesn't... well, the work's still out there, which is obviously better for everyone than it being tied up in legal red tape for years.

[MichaelB]

You can't compare Blu-ray and DVD releases,

True, but Blu-ray is still in its mewling infancy in the UK arthouse market, so it's impossible to draw meaningful comparisons at the moment.

Beyond this, Godard and Tarr are huge names compared to Keen, and Satantango is widely regarded as the most important film of the 90s, however few UK screenings it has received. I'm also sure they've shifted many units of Satantango far beyond the shores of the UK, given that their edition is superior to - and cheaper - than the Facets.

Yes, but that doesn't ignore the fact that they were both considerable commercial risks (especially the Tarr, as I don't think he'd had any significant commercial impact to speak of in the UK). And of course both catalogues contain plenty of other obscure titles that clearly weren't put out with the bottom line in mind - as each distributor has its own cash cows to subsidise the riskier material: it's absolutely standard (and sensible) practice. In fact, many of the BFI's riskier titles are effectively subsidised by the trainspotter market thanks to the British Transport Films catalogue.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing that the BFI can release insanely obscure Blu-rays (the recent Richard Lester being another!), but you know... speaking of which, a friend has been saying to me: what about Il Gattopardo?

This depends entirely on whether Fox wants to carry on letting the BFI license it - I'm not privy to the negotiations (if indeed there've been any).

[Nothing]

they were both considerable commercial risks... each distributor has its own cash cows to subsidise the riskier material: it's absolutely standard (and sensible) practice.

Yes it is... There's a difference between a risk and a non-starter, however. As I recall, AE were very cautious about releasing Satantango; they released the Werckmeister Harmonies / Damnation set first, to see how that would perform before going ahead. Further, the risk would seem to have paid off (the reason a commercial company takes such risks in the first place): almost three years after release, Satantango is ranking at 5,781 on Amazon. By comparison, the Dardennes' latest snore-fest, The Silence of Lorna, release barely a month ago, is ranked at 7,898. Your Jeff Keen DVD, released in Feb '09, is ranking at 18,373 (in which case, I beggar to think how many units of the Blu-Ray have been shifted - is it in three figures?)... Not that that's a bad thing, as I say.

[life_boy]

I just re-watched Rose Hobart for what may be the fourth or fifth time and it just slays me every time I see it. I am in AWE at what I am seeing. The whole thing works like a charm in transporting me to some place I've never been (and can only go when Brother Joe's the pilot, probably). I can't explain everything I see (why would I even want to?!?) but I am utterly captivated from the first frames/first strains of samba. Having worked some with appropriated footage myself, I watch it also thinking about the cuts: the choice of where to cut and how long to hold (certainly the brilliant choice to play it back at 18fps).....who is this guy? He is working against a natural rhythm that I feel, cutting where I don't "naturally" see a cut. But this movement over time, these cuts, become hypnotic. I can't help but wonder how he made some of his choices.

- Did he sense natural rhythms and play against them? (I'm sure this is a question we can NEVER answer)
- Did he have the music before or after cutting? This music choice is also a pertinent point against the whole Sosin style, "ooo look I'm A/G" synth tinkling that doesn't work in any way (that unfortunately gets synched to some of these films post-script).....but here, JC allows music that is not inherently "dramatic" or "mystical" (at least in any conventional sense of those words), it is an almost arbitrary score....ALMOST. I honestly can't say how planned or arbitrary it is/was but I can only take it as it is before me and man, does it work like magic. It was the music that was burned into my brain somehow (with that glorious slow-motion splash) that beckoned me back to this film after a ho-hum initial viewing in a school library (the AmArchives DVD). Come to think of it, it is the music that beckons me back every time (I'm at the grocery store and I just start hearing "pock-oo pock-oo pah pah" in my head!).

I have not had the chance to see any of Cornell's other films but after this most recent viewing, this needs to change and FAST.

[Why doesn't JC have his own director's thread yet?]

[zedz]

I have not had the chance to see any of Cornell's other films but after this most recent viewing, this needs to change and FAST.

Your first stop should be the Unseen Cinema box, which has plenty of Cornell and would be essential even if it didn't.

[Why doesn't JC have his own director's thread yet?]

Because nobody has done it is the flippant answer, but a big factor is probably the vagueness / uncertainty of his filmography, which forms the backbone of the format here.

[montgomery]

There's also this which I don't have but keep meaning to get.

[denti alligator]

There's also this which I don't have but keep meaning to get.

It's well worth the investment.

[JAP]

Two questions:
- Is it still available?
- Can you get it somewhere else? (already tried Amazon, E-Bay, the SF MoMA, the Smithsonian and the Peabody Essex Museum online stores; all this because the Voyager Foundation doesn't reply to my e-mails...)

[RagingNoodles]

A good buddy of mine recently recommended I see the films of Ernie Gehr. So I was wondering, where would one go to search for this work of Gehr? I noticed Serene Velocity is available on some streaming sites, but none of them are 23 minutes long.

[Adam]

Gehr doesn't have a DVD, and most of his films really work only as films, meaning he is literally playing with physical & visual effects that are part of film as medium. Serene Velocity, for example, you might get a hint of, but it really only works when it is a big image that affects your optic nerve with after images that aren't apparent with some tiny image on a computer.

Not a very useful answer, but Ernie isn't concerned with large numbers of people seeing his films.
And meaning really the only way to see his films right now is to rent prints (or get a local film society to do so) from Canyon Cinema or Film-makers Coop.

He does have some recent video work that might be more obtainable, but for example, when I had him as a guest at Filmforum a few years ago, he needed a particular video projector because the video was based on effects created by interlaced fields, so for example a progressive projector couldn't project it. There was even more to it than that, and he didn't let me know ahead of time, so we weren't able to screen it.

[Adam]

I have not had the chance to see any of Cornell's other films but after this most recent viewing, this needs to change and FAST.
Your first stop should be the Unseen Cinema box, which has plenty of Cornell and would be essential even if it didn't.

There is a set now of restored prints, distributed by Anthology Film Archives, done by Jeanne Liotta and, heck, I'm blanking on the name of person #2. We showed them in LA at REDCAT and Filmforum a couple of years ago (to packed houses. One can rent those as well. But many of them are making their way to DVD, as indicated in above. In addition, Rose Hobart is on the first Treasures from American Film Archives.

[gyorgys]

Pdf. download of the The Brakhage Lectures.

[AlexHansen]

Watch Jacobs' Star Spangled to Death at Mubi.

[yoshimori]

Coming from The Netherlands on 1/24/11, the IFFR Shorts Compilation 2005-2010 caught my interest because of the Jeanne Liotta piece, one of my favorite experimental films of the past few years. Full contents - all 217 minutes of it - below:

Joost van Veen - Interlude (Nederland 2005, 3 min.)
Thomas Köner - Nuuk (Duitsland 2005, 6 min.)
David Lammers - Veere (Nederland 2005, 10 min.)
David Shrigley & Chris Shepherd - Who I Am and What I Want (Engeland 2005, 7 min.)
Joke Liberge - Meander (België 2005, 14 min.)
Roy Villevoye - Beginnings (Nederland 2006, 19 min.)
Vipin Vijay - Video Game (India, 2006, 30 min.)
Köken Ergun – The Flag (Turkije 2007, 8 min.)
Geoffrey Boulangé – Hinterland (Frankrijk 2007, 28 min.)
Jeanne Liotta - Observando el cielo (VS 2007, 19 min.)
David Dusa – Amin (Frankrijk 2007, 8 min.)
Ho Yuhang - As I Lay Dying (Maleisië 2007, 10 min.)
Joe Lawlor & Christine Molloy (desperate optimists) - Joy (Engeland 2008, 10 min.)
Mati Diop – Atlantiques (Frankrijk/Senegal 2009, 15 min.)
Galina Myznikova & Sergey Provorov - Despair (Rusland 2009, 18 min.)
Ying Liang – Condolences (China, 2009, 19 min.)

[abkino]

I don't know if this is reviving a dead thread, but I didn't really see anywhere better to post this.

I'm an aspiring filmmaker who has recently gotten into avant garde film. For someone dissatisfied with the state of narrative filmmaking, a-g cinema was a revelation. Michael Snow's Wavelength and Hollis Frampton's Zorns Lemma blew my mind and left me hungry for more.

Unfortunately, for someone like me who doesn't live in new york or LA my ability to access majority of these films is limited. I understand that film is a superior medium to view these works on, but I see a certain injustice for someone like me, not exactly from a lucrative background, being forced to sell a kidney to fly to new york in order to see mothlight or serene velocity 'properly'. Is my input completely worthless unless I see these films in their highest quality? The common assertion that it is not a 'right' of the viewer to be able to see films when they desire so is the very logic that cripples the avant garde's potential. Ernie Gehr not being concerned with how many people see his work is the exact reason so many film students love Kubrick and Coppola. This may be ideological, but I see the a-g as being far more important to the future of the medium. Sure, it may not be to the exact standards Gehr desired to release on DVD, but in doing so more potential contributors to the discourse of film are born. As terrible as UBUWEB's quality is, without them, I would have no desire to continue my pursuit of avant garde film. DVD releases help foster the original works as well. What should be my motivation to spend a lot on money to go see films I haven't the slightest clue of? If I know dog star man is quality, I will be more motivated to go out and see original brakhage works on film.

A few posters previously mentioned the avant garde community is still strong, and that the community won't die if DVD releases aren't widely available, but the film world at large does not reflect the innovations artists like Snow and Frampton introduced. It is only now, in 2011, that commercial cinema is making an effort to confront New American Cinema, albeit somewhat half-assed, in the form of Malick's Tree of Life. Extreme film purism is tantamount to bourgeois elitism; don't live in New York or LA? Fuck you. Artists who sequester their work are doing a disservice to the medium and every effort possible should be made to convince artists like Gehr and Snow that the sooner DVDs of theirs are released, the better.

I don't want to exude a combative tone like the discussion before this seemed to have. If I'm completely wrong, please point that out. I'm just disturbed with the idea that I will be constrained to lesser quality cinema purely due to geographical and fiscal circumstances.

More on topic, are there any good places to view a-g cinema in Austin? I know UT has a film library of some kind, but it doesn't seem to be accessible to the public and I'm uncertain how good their selection is.

[moltenlava]

I loved your post, but let's start here:
"Michael Snow's Wavelength and Hollis Frampton's Zorns Lemma blewmy mind and left me hungry for more."
I am at the opposite end of A-G appreciation. I like what Sitney calls "absolute animation" more than what he unfortunately calls "Structurlism." Nevertheless, there are a great number of so-called structural films on DVD I would recommend.
Oh, wait-DVD is inferior to projection in a NY or LA theater? Hmmm. I'm 62 years old and have seen hundreds of A-G films projected at the San Fransico Art Institute and Pacific Fim Archives. I saw my first projected A-G film when I was 17 in Kansas City,Mo. Is there a difference between projected and DVD? Of course. Is it significant? Given today's home formats, I do not think so, having seen many of the same films on DVD I saw originally projected. If you want to believe the "true believers,' that is your perogative. Regardless, here are some DVDs I think you would appreciate.
From Index of Austria:
Kurt Kren has three magnificent DVDs, one labeled "Structural." Disregard the label and enjoy all three.
VALIE EXPORT has two from Index, both exceptional.
Mara Mattuschka
Peter Tscherkasskey
Martin Arnold
Manfred Neurwirth
Sonic Fiction
Gustav Deutsch
Dariusz Kowalski
..and many others not covered by the NY/LA cognoscenti.

From BFI:

William Raban
Chris Welby
Shoot Shoot Shoot
Lis Rhodes
S. Dwoskin

..and more.

What I am trying to say, is forget other people's biases and self promotion and start your personal education.

[abkino]

I have looked into Tscherkassky and Arnold and I'm definitely willing to explore all corners of the avant garde world. 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.

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?

Thanks for the recommendations. I'll have some shopping to do in the future. Luckily art cinema is a big place.

[SternDiet]

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?

Quite simply because most a-g filmmakers absolutely refure to show their films on anything but actual film. I know that can be frustrating because of lack of availabilty, but on the other hand a lot of these films do keep something of an 'aura' (to paraphrase Walter Benjamin) and when you finally get around to seeing these films after years of reading about them, it can be a pretty amazing and special occasion - more than when the films would be widely available.

I saw a retrospective of Nathaniel Dorsky earlier this year (which was the first time I had been able to see his films after years of frustrating curiosity) and someone actually asked him how he felt about DVD and he simply said he would never think of showing his films on DVD, because it could never match the experience of celluloid film. Then, when someones asked how he felt about blu-ray, he said he felt blu-ray could be better and perhaps a possibilty, but that he hadn't really looked into it enough to make a judgement. In any case, blu-ray was just too expensive to make it feasible right now, he said. So there's definitely a big economic factor also. Cindy Keefer (Centre of Visual Music) recently said to me that if someone would make money available they certainly would want to release Jordan Belson on blu-ray, but that without that kind of help it was just not possible. So unless a Criterion or BFI steps in, these things are sadly not going to happen. But, as you may know, Criterion is planning to release a Hollis Frampton set, either on SD or hi-def - or possibly both - so you have something to look forward to.

[AlexHansen]

(which was the first time I had been able to see his films after years of frustrating curiosity)

Having been in the same situation, I finally broke down and rented prints of a few of Dorsky's films myself, along with a couple Tscherkasskys and Sharits' Apparent Motion. It was definitely an amazing and special occasion. Despite having seen Outer Space (on DVD) and Instructions for a Light and Sound Machine (streaming), seeing them projected was a treat, especially Instructions. It was spendy but not incredibly so, so that's a route you might want to consider abkino. If you're in Austin, I imagine finding a projector and someone to run it would be fairly easy. Probably could find a few others to chip in and lower the cost some as well (which sadly wasn't really an option here in Boise). As for one of your examples of inaccessible filmmakers, Benning's work can be found online pretty easily and Edition Filmmuseum is putting some out on disc at the end of the year.

My advice would be to not worry about things you can't control (the accessibility of some filmmakers work) and simply seek out what is available. Filmmakers seem to be putting their work up on Vimeo more and more. A bunch of stuff is available on DVD. There's plenty to keep you busy until the opportunities to see the Gehrs or Snows of the world present themselves.