Last night I watched a showcase of experimental films. They were flicker films, and as far as I understand the "flicker" means a few things. The actual flicker is achieved by the use of Super 8 and 16mm film, you know the reel to reel they used to show Driver's Ed movies. The main idea behind the flicker film "genre" is trying to break the viewer's narrative, visual, and audio expectations widely accepted in commercial film.
I didn't really dig on any of the films, but the viewing sparked and stimulated a very good "EL" conversation about the meanings and reasons for creating avant-garde art. The likes that I haven't seen since I was an art major. It was really nice, and tied in nicely with what I've been pondering lately about my own art.
Also, Also, I'm watching a ganster movie (I don't know the title Ray Liotta and Al Pacino are stars?), it is highly uncharacteristic of me, but it is pretty interesting. Lot's of guns and blood and coke.
3 comments:
So what is the final verdict on the gangster movie? There a few out there that I think are legitimate classics. Lately thought I've all about the silly in movies like Superbad and Anchorman.
Stan Brakhage is weird. He puts moths and leaves and sometimes paint on celluloid and calls it a film. That'd be like setting a bucket in front of a canvas and calling it a painting of a bucket. Nonsense, I say!
GSR: The final verdict is ... I'm glad that I don't owe scary people money. I like to laugh too! I didn't get a chance to see Superbad, but Will Ferrell (and all his hairy glory) makes me laugh uncontrolably.
FR: Thanks for commenting, it seems like the whole gang has a blog now! Wahoo. Yeah, the jury is out about the avant-garde and experimental arts ... It has a definite use, I'm just not sure if it furthers the medium or makes it laughable. Although, I suppose all art forms are experimental at some point eh?
Post a Comment