From: Puget Sound Cinema Society (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Sep 07 2005 - 09:28:47 PDT
On Wednesday, Sep 7, 2005, at 03:54 US/Pacific, Matt Teichman
<email suppressed> wrote:
> owen wrote:
>
>> But I do think there's a difference between the "sophisticated use of
>> language" and jargon.
>
> There is indeed. It's disheartening to find that even devotees of
> experimental film can be too lazy to make out that difference.
>
> Meanwhile, why don't we leave the anti-intellectualism to the neo-cons,
> with whom it is most at home?
>
> -Matt
And of course this is a typical response. It doesn't take too much
inference to think that Mr. Teichman is implying that one of his
fellows is "anti-intellectual" or "neo-con" because one finds phrases
like "televisual mode of address" to be empty jargon. A snide response
(for which I'm often known) would simply be to say to Mr. Teichman,
"And you're one such devotee who has obviously not made out the
difference," but that would simply provoke. Furthermore, it would
simply illustrate Professor Kreul's question about the avant-garde
attacking itself. Instead, let me make a proposal.
While it's obvious that there is no substitute for watching
avant-garde/experimental/independent/whatever films themselves, it
should be also obvious that MOST people will read a written description
of a film before viewing it, even if that description is a simply blurb
in a festival program or newspaper. Still others will hear a verbal
description of a film first, as in "Wow, man, you have to check out
this totally mind-blowing film 'n' stuff, cuz it's like avunt-guards,
dude." Shouldn't these written and verbal descriptions, then, be
appealing and direct, rather than full of crap?
If avant-garde filmmakers want to build new audiences not solely
comprised of other avant-garde filmmakers, why not try to write and
speak clearly and simply about avant-garde films? If a sizable portion
of the new audience will come from childhood and teenage, why not write
something that would interest children and teens on their level, rather
than making matters worse with impenetrable jargon?
While people like Mr. Teichman may love to conjure up magical words
about modes of address and post-structuralist approaches to
psychodramatic work--and I'm sure these are at least as valid as any
Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity--to my mind, this misses
the point. I believe that opening up the world of exploratory film and
video as the domain solely of po-mo intellectuals and professors
trained to deal in hot air even as they laugh at it, is a BAD IDEA. I
also think that not all students of avant-garde film need be college
students versed in Lyotard, Habermas, Gadamer, Barthes, Metz and blah
blah blah. But there seems to be this notion circulating amongst
writers and speakers on avant-garde film that there are simply two
types of people: the novice and the initiate.
There are exceptions of course, like Scott MacDonald's work, which I
find largely brilliant (probably because he's a teacher), and writings
by filmmakers themselves. Stan Brakhage, whatever I think of most of
his work, was a brilliant writer about film, and was pretty well
jargon-free. But of course filmmakers cannot be bothered often to write
about their work (since they tend to be busy making more work to write
about) and Scott MacDonald is only one person.
I think something written on the level of a well-informed high school
freshman would be an absolutely wonderful project. I know my own
experience trying to find out about avant-garde film (shortly after my
encounters with Maya Deren's and Harry Smith's work) was painfully
frustrating--and I was 15 at the time. There was almost nothing in
print, which meant scouring used bookstores for books by Gene
Youngblood and Sheldon Renan. It sure would have been nice to have
something more accurate but as simply written as Renan's introduction.
Or maybe I'm a dreamer. Maybe the avant-garde filmmakers don't give a
f--k about me or any other young person growing up, and are content to
wallow in hippie nostalgia without having new audiences come from the
youth. I'd like to think that's not true, but with the recent turns of
discussion on this list, I hardly have contrary evidence.
What is this worship of jargon, anyway? David Hume, J. Bronowski,
Gregory Bateson and even Andy Grundberg can convey complex ideas in
simple English prose. It's not necessary to know about "structural film
approaches" to appreciate Michael Snow, nor is it essential to
understand synecdoche or litote or subjunctive moods to read Thomas
Pynchon, any more than most American football fans understand
three-point blocking, T-formations, or post passing. Jargon is
inessential for enjoyment, and I think avant-garde film should be about
enjoyment, and I don't care what Laura Mulvey says.
Professor Omar Willey
University of Utopia
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.