This article addresses avant-garde cinema from a Hollywood and historical approach. He points out that is it necessary for one to be familiar with mainstream cinema and the way movies "should" be in order to respect and understand what makes avant-garde films special. The viewer has to have some the idea of Hollywood film in order to compare/contrast it with experimental, or avant-garde films. The author also touches on how the pioneers of avant-garde are similar to the pioneers of early film (Lumiere Bros, Muybridge, etc) in that they are experimenting with the medium to achieve something new. The general idea of avant-garde is being artistic more inclined than others in your field. Hollywood cinema will never change; it conforms to fit the stereotype that is mainstream, entertainment film. Avant-garde cinema is an important part of the film world because it keeps pushing the medium, and the audience to new limits.
Naming, and Defining, Avant-Garde of Experimental Film - Fred Camper
This article is very helpful in the way that it gives specific guidelines to what qualifies a film as avant-garde or experimental. Some of the main points that Camper addresses are that the film is typically created by one person's vision or idea, and also that this person takes on many roles in the production of his film. Experimental films do not follow general production guidelines where everyone has a specific job, people that work on these films usually work from preproduction through post production, into the editing lab. Also experimental films are very self aware and use the actual medium of the film to create interesting visuals. The author finishes his list with the point that there doesn't need to be any clear message from these movies. They are more ambiguous and controversial, forcing the audience to interpret what they see separately from others. The viewer becomes an "active participant" when watching experimental and avant-garde films.
The film as an art form - Hans Richter
This articles touches on the idea of film being a hybrid, and not authentic form of art. Richter evens goes further to say that Hollywood and mainstream cinema are not works or art on their own but rather performances, and literature on screen. He makes the point, that I find very important, that for a film to be a work of art it has to be so that it is only authentic on screen. In other words, what is filmed would not be artistic if it stood alone, it is only when the action is captured and then projected onto a screen that the real art comes through. Richter used the post-revolutionary films of the Soviet Union, Potemkin, and the post-war films in Italy, Paisan or the Bicycle Thieves, to address some films that are truly works of art. The Soviet Union focused mainly on editing techniques to convey ideas and emotions, while Italian filmmakers where more interested in filming daily tasks and routines. "A film form evolves that is original and not bound by theatrical or literary tradition", Richter says addressing the use of natural locations and unprofessional actors. At the end of his article he notes the idea of "artistic integrity" in avant-garde filmmakers, which is the key to making something a successful work of art.
No comments:
Post a Comment