From: Ed Halter (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Mar 30 2010 - 07:45:57 PDT
Tomorrow, Wednesday night, at Light Industry!
Just perfect for all those folks who can't do Tuesdays.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thomas Beard <email suppressed>
Date: Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 8:30 PM
Subject: The Hart of London
To: email suppressed
*The Hart of London
Jack Chambers, 16mm, 1970, 79 mins
Introduced by Carolee Schneemann
Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 7:30pm
177 Livingston Street, Brooklyn - *PLEASE NOTE NEW ADDRESS*
Perhaps it was ten years ago that the artists Arakawa and Madeleine Gins
told me of a scientist researching optical physiology. He had determined
that cats would be his living subjects. To this end he had constructed a
three-story-high narrow cylinder. Along its interior vivid images were
pasted, illuminated. Photographs within these cylinder walls depicted
elements interesting to cats: brightly colored birds, bowls of food,
shimmering fishes, wild animals, human faces. The experiment was contrived
to photograph the last retinal image mirrored on the pupils of the cats
immediately after their death--killed from the impact of being thrown down
the narrow cylinder.
If there could be a retinal analysis of imprinted filmic imagery, expanded
in time by description, compressed as memory, as an intensity of linked
recognitions--this optical imprint on my inner vision would be inscribed
with fragments from the films of Jack Chambers.
Perhaps, my first viewing of Jack Chambers' films occurred shortly after
being told of the sadistic cat experiment. A few years later, I was able to
teach his indelible works during a year as film faculty at the San Francisco
Art Institute. Associations with the brutal cat experiment recurred, when I
realized I would have to lock my students in the film viewing room if they
were to see the complete projection of *The Hart of London*. Unlike the
cats, whose volition was stolen from them, my students stood scratching at
the locked door insisting. "We're not watching this!"
They could close their eyes, but could I shift their resistance to the
gestural flinch and muscular reciprocity of Chambers' images: moist animal
eyes, spurt of blood, birthing of a human infant, fire, shadow--this
threshold of spectral literalizations that the mad scientist had intended to
capture on the retina of the just-dead cats? Could I brand the students'
vision with Chambers' fleeting forms, their flash and tumble, an energy
which tosses us into an unconscious ecstatic terror? Because Chambers'
images emerge as if structure in time is propelled, an eddying, oceanic
force; edited so that we viewers are engulfed by the rhythms of an
inspiration as challenging and unstable as the invisible sources of
So that suddenly we inhabit a ghost city constructed before our very eyes, a
hundred years ago. Blacked swirl of smoke. Muscular gestures, men laboring.
Darkening clouds. Rail tracks' horizontal spin into receding horizon,
parried dissolve of vertical smokestacks ascending. Ascending. Incandescent
shapes emerge, dissolved into grains, celluloid falling snow. Dissolve.
Intercut to black.
Dissolve to whitened/greyed curly fur. Close-up sheep's eyes glistening
terror: sacrificial ballerinas balanced on planks, facing the camera eye.
Slaughterhouse blades gash. Lens eye splattered. Exploding blood. Indelible
chaos. (Domestic food chain.) Intercut to black. - Carolee Schneemann
Jack Chambers is one of Canada's most famous and greatest living painters.
Why then have his films been as neglected as they have been? I feel that it
is because his films do not arise as an adjunct to his painting (as is true
in the case of most other painter film-makers) but that, rather, Jack
Chambers has realized the almost opposed aesthetics of paint and film and
has created a body of moving pictures so crucially unique as to fright paint
buffery: thus his films have inherited a social position kin to that of the
films of Joseph Cornell in this country. The fact is that four films of Jack
Chambers have changed the whole history of film, despite their neglect, in a
way that isn't possible within the field of painting. There are no "masters"
of film in any significant sense whatsoever. There are only "makers" of film
in the original, or at least medieval, sense of the word. Jack Chambers is a
true "maker" of films. He needs no stance, or standing, for he dances
attendance upon the coming-into-being of something recognizably new: (and as
all is new, always, one must question the veracity of all works, whatever
medium, which beseem everything but that truth). - Stan Brakhage
Tickets - $7, available at door.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.