Reading Response 4: Due Oct. 13 @ 5 p.m.

Reading Response 4: Due Oct. 13 @ 5 p.m.

First, write a brief response to the Ann Buchanan screen test. How is it similar to / different from the Fluxus films screened in class?

The Ann Buchanen screen test is extremely compelling because there's this innate sense of tension through the whole thing. Buchanen's subtle facial moments are emphasized by her effort to keep her eyes open, the way that her lips trembles slightly, or the way her jaw clenches imperceptibly, the tears rolling down her face, her eyelids fluttering without closing. It makes the viewer more aware of all the small movements that are expressed through effort and emotion, and after viewing the film you think of emotion not only in its broad categorical sense but as a growing minutia of infinitesimal gestures like bitting your lip or knotting your brow. I think it's similar to the fluxus films in that it's a film based more on a concept then a purposed narrative or a formal expression of some psychological state. However, I think Buchanan does infuse the film with her own narrative, that being someone who is trying not to blink for three minutes and the struggle of being able to do that and subsequently questions about her reasons for doing so and being so adamant about it.


J. Hoberman, Jonathan Rosenbaum, The Underground

1. What were some of the venues associated with the early underground film movement in New York City? What were some of the unique characteristics of the Charles Theater and its programming?

Some venues include American Underground Cinema, Julian Beck and Judith Malina's Living Theater, The Charles Theater, The Thalia, The New Yorker, and The Bleecker Street Cinema. The Charles was unique because of its "eclectic program" ranging anywhere from Fred Astaire Musicals to Noir B Movies to Marx Brothers movies to Orson Wells movies to the off-beat films at "the radical edge of the auterist spectrum". It was also unique because the lobby would feature artwork from local artists and it featured jazz concerts on Sundays and occasional panel discussions accompanying the films.

2. Which filmmakers did Jonas Mekas associate with the “Baudelairean Cinema”? Why did Mekas use that term, and what were the distinguishing characteristics of the films?
The article states that "Mekas's most important proteges were Ron Rice, Jack Smith, and Ken Jacobs" and that Mekas referred to "Flaming Creatrues, The Queen of Sheba Meets the Atom Man, Blonde Cobra, and Little Stabs of Happines as the four films making up 'the real revolution of cinema today.'" Mekas used the term to relate back to the artist Baudelaire and Rimbaud who were novelists exploring similar themes, the idea of the coexisting nature of "beautiful and terrible, good and evil, delicate and dirty". Essentially, these were films that created poetry from the muck and mire of their artists surrounding environment.

3. Why did underground films run into legal trouble in New York City in 1964? What film encountered legal problems in Los Angeles almost on the same day as Mekas’s second arrest in New York City?

Underground ran into trouble because their content was often deemed lewd or obscene. Subsequently, there were legal issues in New York because they would not submit the films to the New York State Board of Regents for licensing and in so doing made it illegal for them to charge admission for tickets. Mekas was later arrested along with Ken Jacobs for screening Flaming Creatures on the same day as Mike Getz was found guilty of "exhibit[ing] an obscene film" in Scorpio Rising.

4. What were some of the defining characteristics of Andy Warhol’s collaboration with Ronald Tavel? What were some of the unique characteristics of Vinyl? How does Edie Sedgewick end up "stealing" the scene in Vinyl? (You may choose to add your own observations of the film based on our screening.)

Their films were defined by Warhol's long static takes where he almost never cut and would just the let the footage roll no matter what mistakes would occur on screen. Also the actors "came and went as they pleased, were always late, seldom learned their lines, quit without notice and uniformly panicked when the cameras started to roll". The article also states that Eedwick stole the scene by her "dynamic, spaced out presence...less a function of plot than compositional balance". I think that her presence was also curious in the ways she would interact with the other actors, disrupting the already stilted flow of narrative by, for instance, handing Victor a magazine she had been looking at or trying to hand back the candle that was being used in the torture scene. Her performance, if that's what you would call it, was on an entirely different plane than the others because she wasn't even trying to engage with Tavel's text but was still trying to engage with the film at times.

5. In what ways did the underground film begin to "crossover" into the mainstream in 1965-1966? What films and venues were associated with the crossover? How were the films received by the mainstream New York press?

The interest in underground film had piqued in 1965-1966 as a cultural phenomenon where "every magazine in the country...had run one sort of article or another on [it]". The Museum of Art organized a symposium stating the importance of a "New American Cinema" and the two venues in East Village (The Bridge and the Gate) started to regularly screen underground films as well. Films like Scorpio Rising, Inauguration of the Pleasure Doome, Sings of Fleshapoid, and My Hustler all were particularly successful as underground films but The Chelsea girls was something of a game changer. It's press reception had it billed as "the Illiad of the underground" and generally was held up by critics to be a triumph. However, a critic at the New York Times named Bosley Crowther continued to be stringently opposed to the movement, due in large part to its content. He is quoted as saying that "Andy Warhol and his underground friends...are pushing a reckless thing too far".

6. Why was Mike Getz an important figure in the crossover of the underground?

Mike Getz played a large role in getting underground films screened in legitimate theater venues, by grouping them in packaged programs and convincing his uncle (the owner of said movie houses) to show them via weekend midnight play. Due to his initiative it was revealed that this idea was financially lucrative (the first show sold out immediately), thus opening the door for greater crossover efforts.

7. How do Hoberman and Rosenbaum characterize Warhol’s post-1967 films?

Essentially they accuse Warhol and Morissey of exploiting the success of Chelsea Girls by producing films that were "technically improved but spiritually coarsened". The films become debased, overly sexualized shadows of Warhol's former successes. However, as the authors point out, Warhol did become a "catalytic figure in the history of on-screen sexuality" whose films featured unabashed homosexual content that would help destroy the taboos so firmly entrenched in American Cinema.

Robert Pike, “Pros and Cons of Theatrical Bookings”
[in folder: notes_from_the_creative_film_society_pros_and_cons_of_theatrical_booking]

8. What were some of the advantages and disadvantages to the move from non-theatrical to theatrical bookings for experimental films?

The advantages include:

Being able to make a larger amount of money, even able to the point of eclipsing the amount to recoup the expenses of the production. Also, since you are exposing your film to larger audience, you are able to attain a greater amount of prestige and notoriety (which can lead to more projects, possibly with major studios). Presumably it could also be considered an advantage to expose your experimental films to a greater variety of film viewers, provided by the heightened accessibility of theatrical booking.

Disadvantages include:

"Wear and tear on prints", which is apparently much greater than non-theatrical screenings to the consistently poor design of the 16mm projectors the theaters use to exhibit the film. Also, a "lack of respect by the exhibitors and projectionists for the physical prints and the subject matter" which again has links to the wear and tear of films (because since they don't respect the films, the don't handle them with care) along with having the films associated unpleasantly with the sexploitation movement (leading to them sharing a double bill and things of that nature).

9. What issues developed concerning non-exclusive and exclusive representation by distributors?

Generally the article suggests that non-exclusive distribution should only be used if you are exhibiting the film in a "non-theatrical market". That way, it gives the film the best range of coverage for presenting the work. However, if you are using theatrical distribution it is better to use exclusive representation so you can set your rates for the film more easily, preferably a rate that is not so high as the exhibitor views your film as a potential financial risk, but still keeping the filmmaker from being taken advantage of.

10. What problems did the Creative Film Society run into with devious theater owners?

They ran into several problems, first the theater owners used the billings of Underground films in order to disguise the "Beaver" films that they were actually showing (I assume that just means porn films). They also were "duping" the prints (I assume that means duplicating in some crude fashion) and sending them off to other theaters in the chain. Finally, they caught a theater not honoring their agreed upon schedule, arbitrarily showing the first half of one film and the second half another as one billing and mishandling the prints to the point of ruination.