Chill out, people!
This is a Listserv. People write short posts quickly, and hit 'Send'.
"Rhetorical excess" comes with the territory as we dash off our thoughts w/o
reflecting deeply about whether our wording will read to others with the
meanings they had for us when they popped into our heads.
I took Sasha's OP as meant to advocate for films that have a sort of
perspective not-yet presented in the thread -- works one perhaps could call
more 'post-modern' engagements with culture and identity. I took the crack
about Wavelength as essentially tangential and polemic -- an observation that
many contemporary students are not much engaged with the aesthetic concerns of
that work. It's not clear whether Sasha's pique was directed at Wavelength
specifically or 'mid-century High modernism' in general -- i.e. maybe all
'structural film' and/or Brakhage abstractions etc.?? Regardless, intentionally
or not, her language was destined to stir the pot, make some folks feel poked
with a stick, and fire off testy replies.
No film is beyond criticism, including observations that whatever it's merits
for other situations, it's a poor choice for a given programmer or teacher's
goals in addressing the specific audiences they have at hand. Sasha's snark was
phrased as too universal: seeming to suggest Wavelength is no longer any good
to ANY group of "curious, excited young artists". But, indeed, I'm sure there
ARE groups of "curious, excited young artists" without a background in cinema
who would find Wavelength alienating, at least initially, and it's perfectly
valid to pass on that film for an introduction to experimental film in favor of
something more immediately engaging to the group at hand.
As Gene so pungently observed, the problem starts with the absurdity of Donal's
original query. First, the "3 films" concept makes no sense, since experimental
films range in length from a few minutes to several hours. (My gag 3: Star
Spangled to Death, Sleep, The Extravagent Shadows... no intermissions or
bathroom breaks!) Second, "essential" is just silly and off-point. Unlike
Hollywood films directed at mass audiences and respecting a common set of
conventions, experimental works are often very personal, and incredibly varied
in form and content. Thus, what works are and aren't "essential" is not
remotely universal, but conditional and contingent on "for whom?" and "for what
purpose?" Third, this variety and specificity means trying to crowd-source a
list of '3 essentials' is utter folly, that can only lead to unproductive
arguments if people play along.
In the thread OP, Donal didn't tell us anything about his own approach to "the
realm of the moving image" or what kinds of art practices and aesthetics the
folks attending the workshops will be "coming from". For all we know, the
attendees could all be middle-aged ceramicists or landscape painters.
Ultimately, he needs to pick works that speak to him in some way he thinks will
enable him to use them to engage 'noobs'. So it is with any instance of
programming films. The work must 'fit' the programmer, the audience, and the
purpose.
Given the lack of info in the query, responses have (as one would expect)
presumed teaching or exhibition situations with which the posters are familiar:
Andy and Gene spoke of their students; Sasha referred to YOUNG ARTISTS. But I
read the OP as posing an audience of experienced working artists who presumably
already have some sort of aesthetic perspective, rather than the sort of
student population that would sign up for a studies course in experimental film.
Just as there is no universal "3 essential films", there is more than one valid
pedagogical approach to introducing noobs to experimental cinema. Sometimes you
want to ease folks in, showing work that has some familiar elements. Meshes is
probably the most widely used introduction to experimental work, and over the
decades so many of its elements have been incorporated into pop culture
(advertising, music video, etc.), and it's subject matter (angst at gender
roles and domesticity) is so enduring, that it offers a variety of access
points. That works. But for some groups being introduced to experimental work,
what I call 'deep end of the pool pedagogy' can work as well or better —
tossing the initiates into the strangest water possible w/o a life-jacket, then
tossing a safety line into the trashing if it's not getting anywhere...
Andy and Gene speak of student appreciation of Wavelength, but under what
conditions? What courses have they taken before? Is Wavelength the FIRST
screening on the syllabus? Sasha's put-down seemed to me to posit Wavelength as
a poor choice for point-of-entry, not something not worth screening at all, and
I totally understand that. When I first taught 'experimental' I screened it
about half-way through the term, but found the 'bang' too minimal for the
screening time, and concluded any pedagogical purpose I had for showing it was
better served by something else. (E.g. I kept <-->. A practical issue with
Wavelength: depending on the sound system and the volume settings, that audio
wave CAN be a form of physical torture, and we don't all have the kind of
control of screening situations we'd like.)
Gene overstates, or perhaps just lacks clarity, in his response to Sasha. I'd
agree that anyone teaching experimental film at the college level should be
able to present Wavelength in a way that activates student "excitement and
curiosity." But that's a far cry from saying that film will engage those
qualities in and of itself for any and all initiates w/o proper introduction
and framing, and farther still from making a case Wavelength is among the best
choices for an introduction in any given setting. I know Sasha just a little
bit from various conferences back-in-the-day, and I'm quite confident she could
teach Wavelength well if someone tssked her to do so. I do understand how Gene
would read Sasha's off-hand jibe as 'Wavelength is so anachronistic, no one can
make any good use of it now with young people.' And if that's what she meant to
say, and seriously so... well, yeah, that would be pretty darn lame. But if we
read Listserv posts with charity, we might just take her point as '_I_ find a
lot of newer work more compelling than Wavelength, and so do the students who
wind up in my classes, so it doesn't work well as an introduction FOR US, and i
have a lot of choices that works a lot better for our situation.' That's not
laziness, cowardice, or betrayal. We have no idea how challenging Sashs's
students find It Wasn't Love, November, or A Little Death to be, or in what
ways, or how that sets up the rest of her course. I don't know any of those
pieces myself, and they're certainly not canon, so Sasha may have come to them
via diligent searching, loyalty to the ongoing energy of avant-garde works, and
courage in programming beyond the usual suspects.
None of us are in a position to judge her harshly for her choices, or for her
opinion of Wavelength. But she's not in a position to assert Wavelength is
useless to other teaching situations. And I think both Sasha and Gene know that
perfectly well (they're both smart and know their stuff), and this little
kerfuffle would never occur in actual conversation, because neither party
really meant their words in the way they've been read.
So how about EVERYBODY apologize for anything that may have been taken as a
personal attack, or an over-reaching universal claim, and we try to make
something actually USEFUL out of this sorry-ass thread? Sashs's post had some
vague abbreviated points about why she finds the films she listed to be useful
introductions, and the posts on Wavelength make moves in a similar direction.
How 'bout we expand on that?
Thus, suggested discussion topic:
• Define an at least modestly specific audience of experimental film beginners:
background (age, experience, culture), interest in the subject, ('makers'?
'scholars'? both?) and an at least modestly specific setting (semester course?
3-day workshop? single presentation?
• Tell us what you would show this group as their FIRST experimental film
viewing experience. TRT not to exceed 60 minutes. (A single major work, a
program of related shorts - e.g. 'The films of Maya Deren', or a diverse
program of shorts.)
• Explain how the choice fits your passions, the group's interests and
tendencies, and the situation. What pedagogical values you find in the work(s)
you've chosen.
(I'd start, but i'm already late to an appt.!!)
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
