The Structural Film

1. The structural film is not about what a persons inner problems such as Derren in Meshes or about what the filmmaker sees or feels or thinks as in Brakhage. These films are about "cinema of the mind rather than the eye". I am guessing that these films are not about what we see but how it makes us think or perhaps it just makes us think. The four characteristics of the structural film include a fixed camera position, the flicker effect, loop printing, and rephotography. (I'm not sure what rephotography is)

2. I think it means that the structural film is the absolute genre of Avant Garde that represents the human mind. While all of the other genres, trance, lyrical, mythopeoic, were all aiming for Sitney's main argument, structural films are the only ones, in Sitney's opinion who do just that completely.

3. I do not think Sitney comes out and says this question but these are the reasons from the reading why I think Warhol was to Sitney the precursor to the Structural film. Warhol used three of the structuralist techniques in his first few films. He used the fixed frame as well as a loop of film and a freeze frame, which Sitney compares to rephotography, in Sleep. Sitney then goes to say that Warhol was the first filmmaker to make films in which the film would outlast the viewers initial state of perspective. By just waiting on the film to be over the viewer would alter their state of perception. Warhol challenged the viewers ability to endure sameness. So Sitney goes on to say that the challenge of Structural films was how to permit the wandering attention that triggered ontological awareness while watching Warhol films. So I believe Structural films are basically a different kind of Warhol film, it has the same basic meaning behind it, wanting the viewer to create their own individual experience by watching the same thing for a long period of time.

4. A. I'm not sure but I think it is because Warhol was trying to show how Romantic and similar other avant garde films were. So by doing this he was trying to make people aware of every process that went into making a film I suppose.

4B. I guess because Warhol stopped making films the way he did in his early career and started to do in the camera editing, which I guess is not part of the structural film. Sitney says that Snow and Gehr used the fixed camera in a mystical contemplation of a portion of space. So I believe because Warhol began to try new things he separated himself from other structural filmmakers.

4C. I think that it means ever sense Warhol began making his type of films there has been a new way of looking or viewing films. It is not about the story anymore it is about being a in a theater and viewing a film, and what the film makes us do in our minds to get through watching the same thing over and over for a long period of time.

4D. I think Sitney says that Structural films came out of Lyrical, trance and so one because they were in fact the films preceding the Structural film. Perhaps the Structural film would not exist if these other films were not made first. I also think that because of Warhol films, structural films were born. I believe Structural films are the response to Warhol's attack because they take elements of his film and mix it up to make something similar but different.

5. I have no clue but I think it is that Wavelength is a film made in a way to make people aware of their consciousness after they have seen the film. Our minds take over and we create our own vision of the film. The film represents our conscious.

6. I think it is when the critic interprets the film as presenting itself to the direct perception of the viewer, so the film is interpreted as the embodiment of some fundamental feature of conscious. So I guess that means that the film is trying to to get into the conscious of the viewer on some level and whoever is writing about the film is aware of this. Its all very confusing. One critic analyzed Snows work and before she did this she or he said that some films explore the nature of consciousness. The critic believed that Snows work was a link between cinema and consciousness. I guess another way to read this schemata is to see that cinema is a form of consciousness which I don't really get. I guess it means we have a different type of view of a cinematic adventure than we do in the real world. The critic goes on to say that the process of watching a film is acknowledging the production and reproduction of the film. I don't know if that is what you wanted but I'm confused.

7. The Art-process schemata is when the filmmaker blurs the line between the "art" and "life". The person who came up with this also said that any material organized in any way could have aesthetic value, and traditional aesthetic forms needlessly restrict the range of options open to the artist, the production of an innovative film is seen as a demonstration of the conventional process of filmmaking. While all this is well and good I was still very confused the following examples helped me out. Paul Arthur explained that the experience e of film viewing had been radically changed after Warhol. He also wrote about Mothlight and said having a meaning in commercial narrative mode, or in a metaphorical associative mode of the earlier avant-garde which draws the viewer away from the screen and to the attention of the projector as a physical object. So I think this is trying to say that you don't really pay attention to the film as much as how you are seeing the film.

8. Okay the person who came up with this said, usually the "point" of the film, its relevance to the viewing community, is established through another interpretative schema, while direct perception is brought in to the account for the "pleasure" of the film by speaking in terms of its "sensuous qualities", or it's being "perceptually engaging". In Gehr's Wait, the filmmakers method emphasized that the film is actually composed of individual frames with only the illusion of movement". Cornwell said it demonstrates the true nature of the cinema, which is concealed by "normal" film. So I believe this one is where you look at the aesthetics of the film actually being screened, we don't watch the film for narrative but for how it was brought to the viewer. I might have screwed that all up but I hope I got some of it right.

Paper Due Week

I think that Ann's screen test is very similar to the Fluxus films. I mean nothing is really going on and as you stare at her face you see little movements just like Smile by Music or whatnot. When I was watching the film I felt like she was looking at me and that since she was staring at me that I should look back. I found myself in a contest with her to see who would blink first. When I noticed that I was doing it I would stop and then it would happen again. I thought it was pretty interesting the way she kept her eyes open to the point where tears were flowing down her face. She has skills but I think she took it a bit to literally, but it makes an interesting film

1. One popular film venue in NYC was Cinema 16's first screening in a Fashion Industries Auditorium. Another would be American Underground Cinema which also floated around from venue to venue. Ones that are mentioned as purely underground theaters are The Thalia, the New Yorker and The bleaker Street Cinema. And of course (I suppose I think I read it wrong) The Charles. The Charles Lobby had work from local artists and on Sundays there were Jazz concerts. And once a week the theater would run a double bill of some Ukrainian film to try and cater to the neighborhoods senior citizens. At night the theater would play films with panel discussions and in the day it was silent films all day with title cards and the whole bit. Mekas had the idea of showing paying $.95 to see a film or bring in your own.

2. I suppose Jack Smith because it cites Flaming Creatures as one of the films. It also says "The Queen of Sheba Meets the Atom Man, Blond Cobra and Little Stabs at happiness". The film makers include Smith, Rice, the Kuchar twins. The rest I'm not sure about about but perhaps Robert Frank and Barbra Rubin. I think he called it“Baudelairean Cinema” because it was this guy named Rimbaud gave some new qualities to American literature and Mekas group of filmmakers was bring a new experience and life to the cinema. These filmmakers were showing things that might scare the average viewer and that was trending toward the edge of perversity. I think the films shown from Baudelairean Cinema are films that the public would not want to see. I mean the average film goer. There is nudity but it is really art. Its not porn but their are graphic images of private parts shown as art. I hope thats right.

3. A Flaming Creatures showcase was broken up by police because "it was hot enough to burn up the screen" says police. Another film that came under fire was Normal Love. Mekas was arrested a second time for showing Un Chant d'Amour . Around the same time Scorpio Rising came under fire and Mike Getz was found guilty of showing and "obscene film".

4. When reading it seems like Tavel just wrote about Warhol, but I think he started to work with him during the screen tests. Another film I know he worked with him on was Vinyl. Some unique characteristics of this film include that the acting is pretty terrible, also that the camera stays stationary until the reel of film runs out. It feels very improvised in fact. Especially during the dancing scene. I haven't seen a clockwork orange ( I don't know what to expect and don't want to freak out but I think it's something I should watch as a film student, but I digress) so I don't know if there is a dancing scene in it all I know is there is a dude with a top hat and some guy with his eye wired open. I think Edie steals the scene because you are drawn to her. She is doing nothing but the audience keeps looking at her. I know that I kept looking at what she was doing throughout the film. Tavel says of Edie "She sat there, sort of stretched out, and the camera just went berserk looking at those eyes it was like she was discovered"

5. One of the first films to crossover was Warhol's "My Hustler" (Which I hated the at first but now I love). The cinematheque was very important but I believe it moved around. The Regency showed the Chelsea Girls. It showed "My Hustler" in the basement of the Wurlitzer Building. Bosley Crowther of the NY times said that Andy Warhol and his friends need to be careful because they are pushing it too far. But I think this was also good for the films so people interested in what Warhol was doing could go to the screenings and join the fun. Stephen Koch wrote "Word of Mouth made (my Hustler) popular" I think allowing festivals and exhibitions to happen with Warhol were because the press wasn't saying this stuff was horrible. I have no clue if that's what you wanted but hopefully it is okay.

6. Getz decided to create package programs of the underground films. He would send them out for midnight screenings at commercial venues. They became very successful and soon these package films were traveling all over the country making them available for many different people to see.

7. I'm not sure on this one but I think after he got shot he had films with less nudity such as Bike Boy, I, a Man, and Nude Restaurant.

8. Some advantages include gaining back money the filmmaker had to spend out of pocket to make the film, prestige the filmmaker could be a nobody one day and a huge star the next. Disadvantages include wear and tear on the film stock and a lack of respect by the exhibitors and projectionist which equals sloppy handling (Which I find appalling).

9. This is the part I didn't completely understand in Cinema since 1961 but I will try again. Non-exclusive bookings were best according the author because they had loyal customers who expected them to get these films. they also gave the best coverage in different cities for the filmmakers. But with exclusive booking the filmmaker can ask for high rates and the exhibitors have no where else to go.

10. I think what happened was the Creative Film Society were renting programs for weekly runs at Rivoli Theaters. They would advertise that they were playing one film and show others instead.

Week 3

1. I wasn't there for the screening but I do think I read about it last week and I watched a bootleg version on the internet. While I found it boring I found myself seeing different things in the images. For example I know it was a mouth but just staring at it I saw a face in the mount I know that might be hard to understand but that is what I saw just staring at the picture trying to make it more entertaining for myself.

A. I feel that this guy thought film should be simple and basic. This is what Disaperaing Music face was. I mean it was just a stationary camera and an extreme close up of a face. I know most artist were more into making a film about their emotions or expressing something about their personal life. But his film is saying that if you get a camera you can make a film.

B. I think art as on object is referring to paintings or sculptures or even statues. But Art as a performance is anything that isn't stationary. So a film or a dance could be art as performance. While both can be entertaining I think Art as performance is what I would chose over art as object.

2. I don't think Fluxus is in there because it doesn't register with Sitney's argument. He was saying that avant garde was more of a personal, thoughtful film. Where Fluxus was kind of fun and "hey anyone can do this". I think Sitney left them out because it would not help his argument.

3. Jack found a gorgeous Puertorican man and gave him the name Mario Montez. He was a transvestite. But Jack loved him so much because Mario had a presence so Jack gave him the name Maria and when he was Maria it was Jack's creation. Maria was an actress who Jack adored and he would cry during her films. She was the glamor girl of Universal during the technicolor days, when she acted she was not messing around she was sincere about her performance. He might also have loved her so much because she was a Dominican woman who came to American by herself and was able to become an actor. Sort of like the way Jack came to New York trying to be a filmmaker after a rough or unhappy childhood. The people being interview explain that Maria brought the film world to life, that she made the fantasy real, she breathed life into the movie and made you feel it.

I think her movies are pretty cool. I am all for the classics but I am surprised that I have never heard of her. I think that her movies would be entertaining to me. I think she would be a person or actress who I would have liked as well if I was born in a different decade. I couldn't tell which film was Cobra Woman, but I think it was the first clip and she just looks like this beautiful woman, a secretive person who is hiding something and I'm dying to find out.

4. There was a lot of restrictions in the 1950's that broke free during the 60's that made helped to reinvent art. It was a "spiritual awakening". There was a small community and everyone knew everyone and they were all artists. They seemed like the should go together, or to be grouped together. They were trying to achieve the movie glam look, but with such low budgets and limitations it gave their films a different kind of look. Jack and others would go to department store dumpsters and find all the materials they needed to create their films. Whatever they threw away was exactly what they needed for their movie.

5. Zorn's argument is that the real film is the filming of the film. He says that there should have been an audience there watching him film his movie. Jack was true to himself his films were suppose to be extremely close to his own vision, fantasy and view of the world. Jack was a myth while Warhol was known. A lot of important ideas from Warhol came from Jack they had an understand they were friends. Jack believed that Warhol was copying him. Other more mainstream artists including Felelinni would take elements of Jacks films and put it into their own. John Waters says that people began making films like Jack later, but they were doing it and it was becoming more popular.

6. I think he was trying to say that the commercial movie industry was trying to take elements of his personal films and make it mainstream, and he resisted this very much. He did not want his type of film to be commercial film he wanted to keep doing it the way he wanted. They talk about in the film how he set up his apartment like one of his films. Perhaps this was one way of coping with not being able to make the films he wanted without it being eventually tainted with the commercial cinema.