From: Jack Sargeant (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Oct 29 2005 - 03:20:31 PDT
>
> I've had debates with scholars who argue that a 'true' surrealist film
> is only one made in that period (i.e. canonical) or one that adheres
> quite rigidly to the mad, brutal, anti-bourgeoisie/l'amour fou mode;
> and others who argue that 'surrealism' is a modality incorporating
> cut-up animations, nonsensical films, representations of dreams,
> intoxications etc. (Remember Man Ray's words about Emak Bakia - he
> "complied with all the principles of Surrealism: irrationality,
> automatism, psychological and dramatic sequences without apparent
> logic, and complete disregard for conventional storytelling").
>
> I guess I tend to lean towards the more inclusive way of thinking, and
> include lots of avant-garde/experimental films that are maybe
> surrealist rather than Surrealist (or, after Kuenzli's view, use a
> 'surrealist vocabulary'). What do other people think? What sort of
> limits should be put on the naming of a film 'surrealist'?
>
Danni
despite all this labeling.... surely a film is surrealist if it
embraces the spirit and concerns espoused by the surrealists. of
course, as a movement that emerged in a specific locale and time
(Paris, 1920s) then surrealism no longer exists, but as an idea or
belief then clearly it does still exist. invariably though it is the
term used by lazy critics to describe something 'a bit weird'...
Jack
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.