"Twenty-four frames, which you feel , which you always feel" - Kubelka
I had never considered the commonalty between frames per second and notes per measure. They share the principle of rhythm. "Cinema is not movement" -Kubelka Most would respond with, No it is movement. Kubelka explains that each frame is a still image. We are simply viewing still images, not actual movement. The still images are show to a rhythm found in the flow of twenty-four frames per second. Each second is the equivalent of a measure of music. The emphasis of your own reality and understanding that you cannot truly understand any other reality really stands out in my mind. I am a creator and with each creation I find a meaning behind it. If you create something based on something in your reality, it won't necessarily be completely be understood by someone living a different reality. "The danger in film-making lies in thinking that bringing nature to people will be useful"-Kubelka. Film making brings the creator's world. This world is different for your own reality and can be interpreted in an infinite amount of ways by viewers.
Creating something locked to our own reality is not a hindrance, it's a reality~
Filming at 24fps (or any fps really) won't ever be the same I think, thanks Kubelka!
Kubelka’s most interesting statement in this article is that
“cinema is not movies,” which conflicts a bit with the previous Eisenstein
article.While Eisenstein made movies delving
into experimental techniques, Kubelka is harkening back to the ideas previously
communicated by true avant-garde arbiters like Brakhage and Smith.Kubelka seems interested in bucking trends
and defying expectations yet adhering to some formulaic means of doing so.
The story surrounding Schwechater is the best example of
this.The struggle between creative
expression and corporate interests is a long fought bout.Every new company wants to be “edgy,” but
when a corporation seeks out the assistance of an avant-garde artist to
communicate their vision, the result very rarely results in an eye-to-eye
meeting between the two.While Kubelka
was not concerned with creating a “coherent” publicity piece for the titular
company, he still used a system of rhythm and loops to create a complete piece
that also used aspects of the product at the heart of the film (i.e. – the
color red, film shot on site at a restaurant of models drinking the beer, etc).
While there is a focus on the “metrical” aspects of his
films in the breakdown of his frame-by-frame systems or frame-to-whole ratios,
Kubelka’s rebellious attitude is what fascinated me most in this reading; his
rebellious attitude and the last bit that explores ideas of the ecstatic in
filmmaking (and art in general).
It’s interesting that Kubelka equates the ecstatic with
death, to break free of the routine dirge of life.It is even more odd then that Kubelka seems
to believe he achieves some level of ecstasy from a pragmatic, repeatable
structure to making his films.
Eisenstein’s Methods of Montage seems more inclined towards
an analytical filmmaker’s technique than the previous mystical musings of
artists like Smith and Belson.Using
various analyses that break down the rhythm of a film as expressive if its
themes or tone, Eisenstein shows us a means of communicating to a viewer
without explicitly showing us in explicit, conspicuous terms.
I experienced this in the creation of my second film for
this class as I became pretty caught up in the ide of creating a film frame by
frame, inspired heavily by previous examples or the “flicker” films we were shown
previously.The process became extremely
tedious, but viewing the final product did create a very unique sensation.
I wonder however if this is more from the rhythmic tone of
the piece or due to it being tethered to a very cacophonous, blast-beat
soundtrack.This relationship between
film and sound is very interesting to me, and reading this piece by Eisenstein
makes me wonder what the final result would have been without the connotation
and weight of a soundtrack.
Although looking at some examples of Eisenstein’s work,
soundtracks seemed to play a critical role in his films as well.He also was perfectly tied to the time in
which he lived and the area he lived in relation to his theories on
editing.Invariably tied to Marxist
ideas and a culture propagated on propaganda, Eisenstein undoubtedly pulled
from these ideas in his own work.
These ideas made me think to a scene from one of my favorite
movies, Pan’s Labyrinth.In the scene
the protagonist enters the lair of a character called the Pale Man.The scene transpires with mostly equal
measured clips until the aforementioned creature chases after the
protagonist.There is also a smaller
instance within this scene that I would argue is somewhat indicative of
Eisenstein’s “intellectual montage.”When the Pale Man grabs and eats the fairies that accompany our heroine,
it is a direct and obvious recall to William Blake’s painting Saturn Devouring
His Son.”While Guillermo del Toro
doesn’t flash the painting as a frame within his movie, our mind’s eye recalls
it in a split second and the montage transpires within our own imagination.
”The greatness of cinema is not that you can repeat natural light with natural sound, but that you can separate it.
In nature no lightning can occur without thunder, no thunder without lightning, but I can separate it.”
-Peter Kubelka, The Theory of Metrical Film.
Kubelka's films have an aura of dis-reality. We are given a hint of what is really happening, he seems to compartmentalize components of reality;sounds, images. He takes the tools given and the subject matter put before him to effectively create what he calls "his own world"; an objective creation that creates an objective.
His approach to film making is very unique and partly a product of his time with the tools he had to work with. Not many people are able to look at a film strip or a cut of footage and see it not as simply footage, but a piece of a puzzle, like that of a beat in a rhythm. This methodology is so unique that when initially searching for artists in modern day that do works like his, I ran into videos on chaos theory. If one can compare his work to a controlled litany of chaos, then this isn't so far fetched.
Take Adebar, an early experimental film of Kubelka's, for instance. It not put together sequentially in the traditional sense. It is arranged in a way that pays close attention to silhouettes and timing, not of a clear sequence of movement and story. It creates a repetitive and for me unsettling piece.
I do however, identify with his thinking, that most art is too preoccupied with explanations or defining the subject. Because we all experience life differently, we will interpret art differently, even from what the artist thinks about his or her own work. By allowing the work to be non objective, it invites the artist and the viewer a freedom of interpretation and experience.
Peter Kubelko expresses his feelings about how artist tries to define their work too much. The vision becomes one sided and the chance for exploration and discovery may be lost. I for one, completely understand his mindset and share his view in allowing the audience to discover and interpret what they see, hear, feel. He speaks of how even though we all live this world, that all of our experiences in how we perceive life is different. The world doesn't revolve around you; so what triggers one may not be the same for another. "Each of you, as you sit here, lives a different life, so to say: the same time" a different consciousness, a different mood, different observations, different evaluation of the observations. These things or courses of interest come out from practically the past of humanity-- come out from your age, your experience, your education, your state of health, your parents, your parents' parents and where they have been and so on."-- Adevbar
Two ways to render- this option you might get color loss FYI
To have a live feed between Pr - Ae
Go into Pr and import your Ae and right click your .mov in Pr and go to "Replace with Ae Com"
(can do this with Au also)
Add Ps Layers that can be manipulated in Ae
open photoshop-
if you can change background to transparent and keep doc type in film in video do it other wise just stay with custom
export you psd file and do not flatten your layers you want to change
go to import in Ae
Retain Layer Sizes
2nd screen will show match to above
you now have all your photoshop layers
good tool to use for your layers
can animate
PROJECT 3
'
download PD-Extended
good reference ^ cheetomoskeeto -youtube
"Certain phenomena manage to touch a realm of our consciousness so seldom reached that when it is awakened we are shocked and profoundly moved. It's an experience of self-realization as much as an encounter with the external world. The cosmic films of Jordan Belson possess this rare and enigmatic power." - Gene Youngblood
As a huge fan of weird, I'm shocked to have not viewed much cosmic or psychedelic media. Watching Belson's work and working environment proves to me that success can absolutely come to you if you embrace your weirdness (and if you give people a whole lot of drugs before they see your work). Belson expresses his cosmic visions through incredible fluidity, movement, and colors. The key principles are only enhanced by drugs. For the time, there was certainly not much out there like the experience Jordan was offering.
Today we have the ability to be bombarded with weird media/content nearly 24/7 with WiFi everywhere and smart phones. This might make it difficult for some to try and truly experience a work. I really enjoy meeting people that are way into drugs and visuals. They're often pretty passionate about their out of this world experiences and I do think they all might be on to something (or just on something).
Some say God is in the mind and these drugs just help you search. Belson's work certainly helped many as well.
Works like these always make me feel so small, like these are things that man shouldn't be able to see--far off galaxies and universes etc. It's pretty crazy maaan~ Bardo (2001) Jordan Belson
In contrast to last week’s reading, I felt Youngblood’s take
on Belson was much more complimentary and inspiring. Sitney was much more
focused on Youngblood’s role in the history of film and seemed to be more critical
of Belson’s views, such as his belief that he could align his inner vision with
his outer work. Youngblood on the other hand is more complimentary. Of course,
this essay is solely on Belson rather than a survey of the development of film,
so naturally it offers a deeper perspective of Belson’s personality and his
work.
However, whereas Sitney seemed skeptical of the artist’s
vision of spiritual ascension, Youngblood seems to encourage it, or at least
offers it a platform by highlighting Belson and his films. After feeling
somewhat discouraged by the previous reading and its skepticism of
spiritual-artistic clarity, I was refreshed to read a different perspective of
Belson and his achievements. For me at least, my aim as an artist is to get the
point where I can “relate external experience to internal experience,” where like
Belson felt in Samadhi, he “reached
the point where [he] was able to produce externally, with the equipment, what
[he] was seeing internally.”
The big takeaway: do drugs so you can make psychedelic art.
-really cool psychedelic art, might i add. I think it is one thing to create original art. And it is another thing to genuinely make other people experience and enjoy your type of art.. And it is very satisfying to see a person able to do that. That is to say that I think Belson is a good example of the artist who is able to create what he wants to create and be respected for it. His art is based purely on his views and beliefs of the world and his desire to recreate what he sees on film. He isn't motivated by any other external desire other than seeing his work materialized. His goal isn't to have other people like his work. He just creates. And I think that he is very successful, in that he has the very special ability to make others enjoy his work to that extent.
When considering his works, you can feel the energy. After having read about how he really puts himself into his work, it makes it much more meaningful, and much more of a reality that you get to experience (through his eyes). And i believe it is because of his process. He really understands what he wants you to feel, and to experience, and he works towards that feeling relentlessly. A strong theme is why he is able to create such content. And it all comes down to your inspiration as a person and as an artist (whatever moves you, shapes you as a person), coupled with your ability to realize it so that others may enjoy it as you see it. It's all very inspirational.
"To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." - William Shakespeare
There is a point in this reading that borders on the sublime. It comes when Belson describes his experience in creating Samadhi. He talks about a convergence, of the images he sees in his mind that he translates to film that then merge with the images in the real world sky. While these effects are very likely tied to Belson's use of psychedelics, it is a state that I would venture to say all artists seek to obtain: a universal truth that reverberates through our artistic output and into the world and all of its inhabitants and up through the heavens and ultimately back to and through us again.
Going into this second project, this seems a pretty lofty, if not impossible goal. The universal truth that Belson was after seems invariably linked to the time period in which he created his works. With the psychedelic culture flourishing and with the arts in America still riding the crest of the abstract-expressionist movement, Belson was tapping into a more shallow and easily accessible definition of "universality."
With this, I am in no way discounting the magic that Belson was able to create. His films transfix and inspire me. But I wonder if they are capable of drawing in a contemporary audience outside of those already in tune with his vision whether through artistic endeavor or drug fueled hallucination?
What is universal in the here and now? The world is much smaller today. Technology has bridged gaps of physical distance and the audience for any artistic output, ranging from a high school student's sketch to a gallery-backed art phenomenon's masterwork, is potentially global now. How do we tap into truths accepted across cultures and economic strata. Can fields of color and dancing shapes and lines be "superempirical" any longer?
But maybe I am overanalyzing. Perhaps like many great artists, Belson created the films he created for himself in the hopes of tapping into the universal by happy accident. Perhaps his practice was a means of justifying his existence to himself. Because I feel like this is ultimately at the heart of any successful creative practice: creating things that resonate with the self in the hopes that it affects someone else. Not in a universal sense so much as an intimate resonance between the artist and an audience member, the artist and a fellow artist, or the artist and God. And from this resonance, the hope that our pursuits are not in vain grows and we continue to pursue the universal, all the while growing in our craft.
I was somewhat confused by Sitney’s discussion of absolute
animation (Chapter Eight of Visionary Film). First of all there was the
definition of absolute film itself. The term “absolute film” is not mentioned
until the very end of the chapter, and even then the definition was elusive.
The concept of absolute film is mentioned in relation to Jordan Belson, the
last of the filmmakers mentioned in the chapter. Belson’s films are characteristically
cosmic and spiritual. When watching his work, such as Samadhi, which he describes as the only film in which is his
artistic vision was fully realized, one is transported to the wordless depth of
the mind. As with some of his contemporaries and predecessors such as Harry
Smith, there is something inherently introspective about the abstract or
non-objective nature of the works.
However, Sitney is critical of the view of film as a medium
for spiritual transportation. When he quotes Belson’s description of having managed
to fully and artistically manifest an inner vision, which every artist strives
for, Sitney refers to this possibility as a “myth.” While I can understand the
viewpoint that spirituality or God itself are “myths” (regardless of personal
beliefs), the view I extracted from Sitney’s writing – that fully realizing one’s
artistic vision (in film) is unachievable – struck me as extremely
disheartening and something I sincerely hope to be false.
"I never did finish that sentence about the relation of Surreal-
ism to my things: I assumed that something was controlling the
course of action and that it was not simply arbitrary, so that by
sortilege (as you know, there is a system of divination called
“sortilege”) everything would come out alright."
I was struck by Harry Smith's quote above. Specifically his choice of the word "sortilege." The origin of this word traces back to French from Latin, with origins rooted in magic and the casting of lots. The Romans practiced sortilege, or cleromancy, as a means of shifting the burden of reaching some outcome through the work of human hands to that of the sheer will of God or gods. This ancient idea is something that I am continuously drawn to in my art. As an individual who identifies as religious (as well as an artist), I have always felt that the act of creation is in fact a direct communing with the first and penultimate Creator. And apparently so did Harry Smith:
“My movies are made by God; I was just the
medium for them.”
This sentiment is echoed by countless artists across all of recorded history. To these individuals, the very act of exercising their creativity brings them closer than anything else to the heart of God. They rest wholly inside "the zone" that Stan Brakhage commented on in our first reading, finding a strange solace in the impossible, yet noble, pursuit of the Divine. Quite a bit of what is written here about Smith, Belson, and some of the other filmmakers we have looked at this semester borders on the ramblings of drug-addled nonsense. In fact, Hunter S. Thompson was quoted as blaming some of this exact type of sentiment on Timothy Leary's psychedelia-peddling as creating "a generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old-mystic fallacy of the Acid Culture: the desperate assumption that somebody... or at least some force - is tending the light at the end of the tunnel." But I find more than a grain of truth in what these filmmakers are speaking to. A heartfelt commission to explain the unexplainable. To communicate that which has no words. To pull back the veil of our perception so that we can all see a bit more clearly into the realms of the infinite. There is something to this sortilege method Smith is referencing. I have found that God can assert his will more through art than acts of miracles in this cold, uninterested world we live in. The beautiful minds that we have allow us to apply meaning and narrative to a variety of seemingly unassociated things. And what is this if not simple creativity. And what is creation if not the work of a creator.
“You shouldn’t be looking at this as a continuity. Film frames are hieroglyphs, even when they look like actuality. You should think of the individual film frame, always, as a glyph, and then you’ll understand what cinema is about.” -Harry Smith
That's a great line, I think i understand experimental films a little more now. Especially in the context of animation, it's really impressive what they accomplished back then by working frame by frame with lens-painting and such. I liked Smith's earlier works with the geometric shapes as opposed to the more free form and concrete visualizations of his later work.
In terms of Jordan Belson's work, from what i could find on the internet, it looks super cool. How did he make it? The works that i could find are very soothing, and relaxing in a way. Definitely very spiritual and meditative. Granted, i couldn't find a lot of his work, but a lot of videos i found on youtube were most likely inspired by his films.
Something that was probably influenced by Belson's colorful works was the visualizations of the early windows media player. Something like this:
It’s always interesting to read about past innovations in
art and the controversy of their time. Each of the trends described by Thompson
and Bordwell seem almost a given to me in terms of films and moving images
which we see today.
While reading, I tried to think of contemporary examples of
works that incorporate aspects of the trends in the early days of film experimentation.
The first thing that came to mind
when I read about abstract animation was an artist I recently stumbled upon on
Instagram, David McLeod. Viewing Walter Ruttmann’s Lichtspiel Opus 1 furthered the connection I had in my mind between
McLeod and the concept of early abstract animation. In Opus 1, different colored shapes move across the screen and in some
cases seem to interact with one another. Ruttmann’s manual process is evident; one
can occasionally glimpse the evidence of paint strokes, and the movement is not
always fluid. Regardless, one is drawn into the abstract world that Ruttmann
projects on screen.
If it were not for artists such as Ruttmann leading the way
in the early 20th century, we may not have artists such as contemporary
3D artist David McLeod,
who expands upon the idea of abstract shapes in movement, but makes them three
dimensional and increasingly sophisticated and refined.
In terms of Dada filmmaking, it was a bit more difficult for
me to connect with this trend. I chose to watch Man Ray’s Retour à la raison and some of René Clair’s Entr’acte. Man Ray’s film made no sense to me and I was not sure I
would consider it art. Entr’acte
seemed somewhat more familiar somehow, maybe given that there were people in it
and something like a narrative was suggested (even though it still made no real
sense). However, I think even elements of Dadaism make their way in films
today. Sometimes images with seemingly no relevance are flashed across the screen
and the viewer must make sense of them. The same would apply to surrealism – we
are surrounded by surrealist imagery and video all the time.
This may be a stretch but Zayn Malik's music video for "Pillowtalk" that came out recently had me considering some of these trends as I watched it. There were various shots that seemingly had no relevance to the message of the video, such as a model with studs coming out of her face (see below), two models boxing, or animations of red liquid dripping down the screen.
one wonders what the relevance of this model with studs on her face was
All of the trends from the early experimental films days, even those that supposedly died
out like Dadaism, have an effect on the films we view today - whether they are the traditional cinematic films, music videos, YouTube videos, or animations.
The meaning behind experimental film is not something that many in their life time will try to understand. Without readings like Bordwell and Thompson's"Film Experiments Outside the Mainstream Industry" the history, techniques, and overall culture would be lost forever. Some films may be documented in writing, but lost never to be seen again. Ruttman's description "moving paintings" stood out to me. The last blog post I shared a video about a Dali painting that was made into a virtual experience you can walk around in. It's without a doubt that that we have to thank these pioneers of experimental film for where we are today in art.
Artist's have a meaning that influences the work, but as we've learned from the experiments, the process will also influence the work. The artist with passion will lose themselves in the process, but find their meaning as well.
I found an interesting first hand look at an early way to create geometric patterns in film. Combining a light with objects that reflect and stressing the direction creates gorgeous waves and shapes, 1930's.
Why is experimental film important? Experimental film making is a world all its own, and it's one that is often overlooked by the majority of the population. It's a unique and powerful art form that provides countless benefits beyond the fact that it allows us to be artists in the truest sense of the word. In this technological era artists are finding new ways to experiment by inventing and reinventing new and old techniques. Avant-Garde was a military term that literally translate to "forward guard." It described the soldiers on horseback that led troops into battle. Avant-garde filmmakers are basically doing the same thing with art. Paving the way and creating art that is not mainstream. It is important to have these experimental film makers to push boundaries. These type of short films allow the audience to experience the world in an unfamiliar way that may shock, amaze or disturb us.
I think as a society we need these experimental artist who are going against mainstream. It puts things into perspective to have this order we see everyday and than these more chaotic pieces that make us think is this really order or the truth?
One of the great things about non mainstream films is that it's more personal to a individual or group. Helps express what they might not be able to say with words. Our society understand visual statements better than listening to a speech. That's why advertising is such a big deal.
It's amazing to watch how experimental film grows as our technology grows. In the reading it talked about Ruttmans "moving paintings". He would paint on glass with oil than wipe it away and draw again. I have heard a more recent New Media artist work being compared to a moving painting but his work did not even evolve paint. Some of Bill Violas work have been called "moving paintings". Less things are needed for experimental artist. Most just need a camera and a computer to get started.
"You can't turn film into a work of art by augmenting and exalting it with 'quality'. You can gather together the best mimes in the world, you can let them perform in the most exquisite paradise, you can adorn the programs of your film dramas with the names of the most eminent poets - art will never result that way. A work of art will result only if it is born of the possibilities and demands of its matierials." - Walter Ruttmann
We as an audience never quite understand the rich history of experimental film and its significance. The method of experimental is precisely why we struggle to digest what is put in front of us. The more this class goes on and the more I personally have been exposed to and delve into experimental/non-objective art, the more I see the appeal.
Ruttmann's words comes from the idea of opposing the idea of film as an art form in the sense that film is only considered art when it has substance from culture, like literature; that the art should speak for itself. It is a line of thought very much in tune with the movements of the time, like dadaism or abstract art. When applying this kind of thought to animation, it invites a very liberating feeling. I had always obsessed with making any artwork I made have some kind of substance, whether it contained subject matter that was allusions to some kind of myth or literature or that the technique was mastery. Through the methods of abstracted or experimental art, I am free to let go of those restrictions. Does that mean that I as an artist let go of all meaning or tact when I create? No, it just means that I am not trapped in a mold that I usually feel I must fit into. Experimental art, to me, is about the experience. For the artist, it is about the journey that goes into creating the piece. For the viewer it is about the experience. I believe that even those who see no point or relevance in experimental films cannot deny that they felt an affect when they viewed a film. I realize that for all the symbolism or story I try to fit into the works I make, there is a struggle I feel because I am "augmenting" the piece with truly extraneous elements. Once again, Ruttmann is talking about film in this quote and it is not film I am interested in so much as visual images and animations, like the "moving paintings" that he and artists like Hans Richter would produce.
I stumbled across this abstract animation about three years old from animator Takashi Ohashi. It has that atmosphere in experimental/abstract animation that I admire in how minimalist forms of light on a dark background create this playful and strange symphony with a hint of a narrative.
The extent and scope of the experimentation on film leads me to believe that it is intended for a very small and specific niche of viewers. The reason being is that the main purpose of this experimentation was to go against the mainstream techniques that was present at the time. It is my understanding that mainstream techniques include a narrative structure, composition, an effort to be visually appealing, a methodological cohesiveness, and being relatable (among other things). Experimental films are everything but.
With that being said, to go against the mainstream would mean a random consortium of juxtaposition solely for the sake of being different. To go against narrative would be to make a senseless sequence of frames that mean nothing. Disregarding composition eliminates the desire to make appealing images. And without caring for visual appeal or relatability gives them free reign to do whatever they want no matter how nonsensical or jarring. I understand that they have the artistic freedom to do all this and simply create. But in that regard, since their goal is to just go against the grain, how can you determine what is "good" and of value? Going by mainstream standards, its not. But even so, there is no standard to go by since the only thing that matters would be for them to be non-mainstream.
People admire art if it is beautiful, or meaningful, or if it requires a skill, or a creativity unseen before, to say the least. The work described here in this article most likely would not be comprehended this way by most people. Which begs my question - Is their art one that is only done for their sake of expressing themselves (non-mainstream like), and if people don't get it, will they just say " oh, they just don't understand me"? I would compare the experimental films to some of today's contemporary art. The exhibits in the galleries where in the middle of the room is just a messed up bed and they added some paint. Or a mishmash of everyday found objects glued together that resembles a grade schooler's diorama. In these instances, they go against what we consider art. They go against mainstream, but does that make it good?
And to clarify, I'm not against experimental films. I think some of it is good art - within my definition of the subject. But as a whole, the mainstream has been developed because those techniques are ones that resonate with us or is naturally appealing in some way. And for experimental films, they are consciously rejecting those visual elements that are proved appealing, and going the opposite way. It should be no surprise then, if people also start feeling the opposite way (of mainstream) towards them.
Reading through Bordwell and Thompson's genre breakdown of early experimental film, I was struck with the thought that while there continues to be a general disdain for (or indifference to) the blatantly avant-garde in cinema, we have also grown a measured, communal tolerance of the esoteric sensibilities of experimental film in our modern mainstream cinema.
I can remember seeing Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas in the movie theater. Likewise, I saw Lars von Trier's Antichrist on the big screen as well. While the combined US box office gross of these two films barely crosses $11 million dollars (roughly 5% of the budget of James Cameron's Avatar), you don't have to look far to see the echo of experimental film in more mainstream media.
Abstract Animation
The opening of Walt Disney's Fantasia (1940) employs Abstract Animation to the tune of Bach's Toccata and Fugue, letting the music work in a visual method just as much as leaning on the aural aspects of the classical piece. Alfred Hitchcock used abstract animation to highlight the disorientation inherent in his feature Vertigo (1958). And director Paul Thomas Anderson enlisted the artist Jeremy Blake to create beautiful abstract interludes for his film Punch-Drunk Love (2002).
Still from Fantasia (1940)
Surrealism
Perhaps standing as the type of experimental filmmaking most prevalent in mainstream cinema, surrealism has ties to countless aspects of modern film. From the recent feature Under the Skin (2013) to countless other genre films and dream sequences, surrealism works its way into various mainstream outlets. You don't need to dig deep into the catalogue of Tim Burton to find examples of surrealist tendencies. Although the movie as a whole lacks substance, the elaborate scenes inside the mind of a serial killer in Tarsem Singh's The Cell (2000) are very interesting examples of surrealism. Perhaps the best known surreal filmmaker widely recognized by Hollywood is David Lynch, who unabashedly wanders into the abstract in almost all of his films.
Still from The Cell (2000)
Cinema Pur
The films of Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Marc Caro routinely employ the aspects emphasized by the Cinema Pur movement; rhythmic shots that border on musical and long, sweeping close-up shots of various items and faces that communicate a sense of nostalgia without the need of dialogue. Director Michel Gondry also uses practical effects including stop-motion in his movies, much like the artists of the Cinema Pur movement. And finally, Alejandro Inarritu utilizes Cinema Pur techniques repeatedly in his 2014 Best Picture Winning Birdman by literally inserting rhythm into the film with a free-jazz drum soundtrack throughout the whole film.
Still from Delicatessen (1991)
This just scratches the surface of the reverberations experimental filmmaking has had on mainstream media. It's difficult to discern why our attention span for experimental film is limited to short bursts, confined to dream sequences and montages, but the existence of the impact of the experimental filmmakers we have learned about thus far this semester is undeniable.
