Saying that a film makes students want to commit suicide isn't a critique, its an offensive derogatory statement, which is directed not just towards the filmmaker, but towards her students especially.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 1:27 PM Dave Tetzlaff <djte...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks