// : || ~ ~ : |------->

    F I L M - P H I L O S O P H Y
    Internet Salon (ISSN 1466-4615)
    http://www.film-philosophy.com

    Volume 3  Number 52, December 1999

                            <-------| : ~ ~ || : \\



    Margaret E. Johnson

    A Non-Critical Review



Scott MacDonald
_A Critical Cinema 3: Interviews with Independent Filmmakers_
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998
ISBN 0-520-08705-4 (cloth)
ISBN 0-520-20943-5 (paper)
481 pp

In the introduction to _A Critical Cinema 3_ Scott MacDonald acknowledges
that one of his goals in the production of this rich set of interviews is
to be uncritical. He writes, 'I mean to honor efforts and accomplishments
too often ignored by the public at large and even by those who consider
themselves specialists in cinema history, rather than to provide anything
like an expose' (10). His mission to introduce independent filmmakers to an
audience often lacking familiarity with such a wide array of creators is
laudable. Indeed, MacDonald displays his awareness that many of his readers
may be altogether lacking the basic knowledge of not only what independent
films mean, and what their purposes might be, but also what, in fact,
independent films are.

Although independent filmmakers have drawn an enormous amount of attention
in recent years -- as major mainstream actors have offered their
performances for low salaries and the films have received major notice at
the many film festivals that cater to independent films -- the filmmakers
included in this volume are frequently not among this newly recognized
crowd. Their work fits into a variety of categories, from the avant garde
and experimental, to the poetic and abstract. All of these types of films,
along with others listed by MacDonald, are what constitute the critical
cinema; 'film forms . . . capable of surprising viewers and catalyzing
critique -- by filmmakers with limited economic means' (1), that is the
focus of the book.

Perhaps the greatest strength of this collection of essays is the wide
range of filmmakers interviewed. [1] Rather than attempt to produce a set
of thematically connected pieces, MacDonald opts for variety, giving
readers the opportunity to learn about films that may appear startlingly
new in their content or style. However, this variety is also what makes the
collection seem, at times, to be a bit scattered. And the long periods over
which the interviews took place also contribute to this lack of
cohesiveness. With the earliest of interviews taking place in 1991 (and a
portion of the interview with Amos Vogel from 1983), the terrain in which
these artists work may no longer provide the same type of backdrop. While
it is useful to know what the attitudes toward filmmaking were like at that
time, the establishment against which many of these directors were working
may be quite different now, and these differences are not always explored.
While the interview with Vogel, the creator of Cinema 16, the
groundbreaking venue for showing independent film, is one of the
collection's most exciting, a good deal of it is set within a context that
is much different from the ones in which the majority of the filmmakers
currently work.

The interviews were conducted in a variety of ways: in person, on the
phone, by mail. In addition, MacDonald takes portions of public talks or
interviews by others and incorporates them into his own. As a final
adjustment, MacDonald adds, when he thinks necessary and appropriate,
comments that were not made by the filmmakers, but which MacDonald believes
to reflect adequately their thinking and to further a point. While his play
with the form and structure of the interview complements the inventive
nature of the films at the center of the book, the liberties taken with
accuracy draw into question some of the more valuable moments of the text.

The fascinating interview with Vogel starts off the collection. While not a
filmmaker himself, Vogel's theater was highly instrumental (from 1943-63)
in giving viewers access to many small and experimental films. His
astounding knowledge of film informs his thinking, allowing him, more than
any other artist in the collection, to offer invigorating and thoughtful
ideas about film as art. He provides, for example, an astute observation
about why contemporary art film, unlike other forms of contemporary art,
lags behind in viewer appreciation and support. He explains: 'When you look
at a very advanced kind of modernist painting, you can decide whether you
want to look for one minute or for half an hour, or just turn away . . .
With film you're a captive' (27). Vogel manages to ponder the role of
viewer in relation to film in ways that transcend specific films. The
issues that Vogel considers in his interview reveal the most contemplative
and critically astute moments in the collection of essays.

His interview also provides a rather insightful description of the
challenges which met viewers in trying to see a wide array of foreign and
avant garde films fifty years ago. The incredible lack of outlets for
non-Hollywood films appears to far outweigh the current struggles of
filmmakers and their attempts to distribute their work and find their
audience.

Yet even while a change in the reception of independent film has taken
place in the second half of this century, one vital point that this book
repeatedly suggests is that access to much experimental film is still
denied to most of us. John Porter, who works almost exclusively in Super-8,
and William Greaves, whose most famous work, _Symbiopsychotaxiplasm_, has
had only a handful of showings, find themselves with limited, if
enthusiastic, audiences. The interviews with these filmmakers, in
particular, exemplify the challenges in finding significant outlets for
their powerful projects.

Much of Porter's work found a viewership at The Funnel, a Toronto theater
focused on showing all but 35mm film. His observation that people come to
this theater from the United States and other countries suggests the
extraordinarily limited distribution possibilities for such films. The very
volume of films created by Porter (over 200 movies as of 1993) also calls
into question how we define art and the art object. The seeming deluge of
film from Porter might be the very thing that keeps him from receiving
significant recognition from the larger film community. It is an odd
situation that the use of Super-8 both allows a filmmaker to gain access to
the creation of art, but also serves to deny that artist an opportunity for
full acceptance into the realm of the filmmaker.

In Greaves's case, the economic burden severely limited the completion of
_Symbiopsychotaxiplasm_, resulting in a three-year delay before the film
was able to be shown. Due to a variety of other difficulties that Greaves
details, the film was never officially released. Though it has been
presented at special screenings over the years, the challenges Greaves
faced prevented the film from finding full recognition.

The experiences of Greaves and Porter are repeated in slightly different
ways by most of the filmmakers interviewed, and the economic and
distribution hardships form the primary sub-text of the volume. MacDonald
brings up the issue of financing in most interviews, indirectly reinforcing
that many of the day-to-day activities of these artists is taken up in the
business side of their work. Though this situation is true for most of the
filmmakers, the text leaves these strands hanging for readers to recognize
and consider.

One of the few weak spots in _A Critical Cinema 3_ is the lack of a larger
consideration and critique of the concerns that continue to affect (and
often overwhelm) the filmmakers. Though economic and distribution issues
are discussed repeatedly through the interviews, nowhere does MacDonald
stop to synthesize material that reveals itself in the conversations.
While, of course, other writers might pursue these issues in significant
works, MacDonald has an amazing opportunity to do it in this text. Rarely
do readers have the voices of so many fine filmmakers in one spot, and the
missed chance of pulling together the primary concerns and observations of
the artists interviewed is notable.

If this text sees a second edition, the one suggestion I would have is for
the addition of a conclusion to draw together the recurring points, to
assist readers in locating the connections among the filmmakers and their
interviews. In part, this might help readers comprehend the inclusion of
filmmakers whose experiences are as disparate as that of Porter, who reels
off hundreds of short films, and Sally Potter, who, among the filmmakers
included in this volume, has had the most success in crossing over to
'mainstream independent' audiences.

The interview with Potter took place not long after the release of
_Orlando_, the highly praised and widely viewed adaptation of the Virginia
Woolf novel. Since the time of the interview and the completion of the
book, another of her films, _The Tango Lesson_, has also found its way into
a large number of theaters that show prominent independent films. All of
this is not to say that Potter has had an easy time funding and producing
films, but unlike most of the filmmakers MacDonald interviews, she has a
more mainstream following and has the attention of the popular press. (And
in keeping with the popular press, MacDonald pursues a line of inquiry
about Potter's sexual identity and its relationship to her films.) By
closing the volume with the Potter interview, MacDonald ends on a high
note, implying that the success that Potter has experienced is available
for all who create critical cinema.

The Potter interview, with its discussion of her early experience with film
and the specifics of her most important films, is typical of the structure
of most of the interviews. The primary focus is usually generative. The
directors often explain their backgrounds and entries into filmmaking, and
then, when discussing particular works, offer their reasons for crafting
the films and particular scenes in specific ways. In short, they interpret
their films for MacDonald and the readers. The benefits of such
explications are largely self-evident. Because many of the films of the
critical cinema confront and reject the expectations of viewers, they
demand a great deal of knowledgeable effort on behalf of the viewers to
understand fully the various levels of meaning. With the director's own
commentary to guide us, we undoubtedly have an opportunity to rethink the
films we've seen and, perhaps more importantly, to develop a desire to
search out the films with which we are unfamiliar. The bulk of this
explanatory material would be most useful, I think, for film students
trying to develop a sense of composition. The point-by-point description of
the mise en scene elucidates the detailed process that goes into the
construction of a film. [2]

While impressive for all readers interested in film, _A Critical Cinema 3_
is slightly less valuable for those not studying the process of filmmaking.
Because the focus rests primarily on the physical act of making film rather
than on the effects of the films produced, the book does not venture into
the realm of contemplative discourse enough to break new ground. Its main
value is simply in creating exposure for the eclectic set of filmmakers
interviewed, all of whom have different goals in the making of their films.
[3]

During the moments when the filmmakers do stop to consider the more
philosophical implications of their work, the interviews reach their
pinnacle. Of enormous interest is a moment in an interview with Martin
Arnold who, when explaining aspects of his film _Piece Touchee_, claims
that the 'cinema of Hollywood is a cinema of exclusion, reduction, and
denial, a cinema of repression. In consequence we should not only consider
what is shown, but also that which is not shown. There is always something
behind that which is being represented, which was not represented' (354).
This statement, meant as commentary on Arnold's own films, also serves as a
description of the work of all the artists in this collection. As they find
their own places in the world of film, they offer up cinematic difference,
providing a space for the invisible, the silent, the ignored. Their own
films are those which include parts of life and art which are not shown to
most film viewers, not shown in most film. And it is in this way that the
filmmakers, and their interviews, have so much to offer.

Certainly, in _A Critical Cinema 3_ we have a signpost for the millennium,
a place that points back toward the struggles our artists have had to bear
in this century and directs us to the possibilities for film in the next
century. While I have small reservations, enumerated above, about some
elements of this text, I find that my own inclination, like that of
MacDonald, is to encourage readers to break out of their critical shells
momentarily and enjoy the opportunity to learn more about the ways in which
films that challenge, overwhelm, and at times frustrate us came about.

Idaho State University, Pocatello, USA


Footnotes

1. Those interviewed are William Greaves, Jordan Belson, Arthur Peleshian,
Charles Burnett, Hara Kazuo, Peter Watkins, Ken Jacobs, Nick Deocampo, Mani
Kaul, Craig Baldwin, Gunvor Nelson, Christine Choy, Rose Lowder, Peter
Hutton, Valie Export, Patrick Bokanowski, Yervant Gianikian and Angela
Ricci Lucchi, Elias Merhige, Aline Mare, Cauleen Smith, John Porter,
Raphael Montanez Ortiz, Martin Arnold, Ken and Flo Jacobs, and Sally Potter.

2. Also of extraordinary value to film students and film historians are the
filmographies and bibliographies provided for each of the filmmakers at the
end of the volume.

3. The styles and goals of these filmmakers are often vastly different.
Ortiz, for example, has a strongly political and/or social purpose in his
filmmaking. He thinks that film 'is one of the places where our culture
most believes it has established what this culture means, what it is about,
and where it should be going. It communicates these assumptions in the
resonance between us and that information on the screen, at the
nervous-system level. I found a way to re-mystify that experience and . . .
relocate it back into the sacred' (339). Arnold, on the other hand,
privileges sound in his films as a way of exploring silence and other
elements that are often overlooked.


Copyright © _Film-Philosophy_ 1999

Margaret E. Johnson, 'A Non-Critical Review', vol. 3 no. 52, December 1999
<http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy/files/mjohnson.html>.


    **********

Send your thoughts on this article and its subject to:

    [log in to unmask]

    ********************************




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%