Invocation of My Demon Brother

I'm sorry. Some things don't stand the test of time. I lived through all this stuff when everyone was smoking or taking acid and thought these kinds of films were so cool. Now they seem laughable. Apparently, this helped to put the Rolling Stones' Satan stuff in some sort of visual realm. Instead, it looks like something a bunch of high school kids did in their art class. Throbbing and endless.

Don't listen to the guy above, since he thinks all art films are supposed to hold your hand, and tell you what to think and believe. This film is obviously an artifact of subjective, artistic expression (like all real art usually is). But I happen to think it's genius. Just because I don't like the images (which I in fact do) doesn't dis-validate it as art. Art is not for entertainment, as it is the allowance of the artist to express themselves in a certain language/form/deliverance.

This film can be interpreted as a view on the artist's fascination with the occult, life, or just certain images in general. Some parts remind me of how sensitive we are to certain images, and so on. Every film isn't like Hollywood, tied up with a neat little bow, were can all hold hands and skip down the yellow brick road. Sometimes, it portrays what goes on the psyche of certain people. Look at Jordorwosky, for instance.

A very strange film. The sound track - done on a Moog synthesizer - is repetitious and droning, which adds to the atmosphere, though can be annoying if you're not "into it". It's creepy. There really isn't a lot to say - only watch this film if you understand what you're getting into. By far more creepy and off-putting than most modern Hollywood horror films, in part because the film style gives it a more immediate presence. The cinematography isn't polished, the sound and setting aren't polished, but that's half of what makes it work so well.

I watched this last night for the first time, on the "Films of Kenneth Anger Vol. 2" DVD, and to me this was probably the most intense of the set. Between the droning, obnoxious score (by Mick Jagger, of all things), and the changing film speeds, this film really did invoke feelings of, if not really a nightmare, then definitely an altered state, and not a real fun one at that.

But the capper for me was the use of Bobby Beausoleil (sp?), who was one of Manson's killers. This footage was apparently shot only a couple of years before Bobby (sorry, not trying to imply too much familiarity, but I'm really sick of typing his last name, it hurts my brain) murdered Gary Hinman. The footage of Bobby, combined with the knowledge of what he's gonna do in a couple of years, just creeped the f**k right out of me.

So, I did like this, and I'd recommend it to folks interested in Anger, or in weird sixties head trips & the dark side of psychedelia, but I'm really glad I didn't watch it under the influence. It probably would have wound up occupying a "special" place in my brain, and I don't mean a good happy place.

I disagree with the comment that angers film is amateurish and boring. what you have to keep in mind is that is was made in 1969 on a shoestring budget. also that the whole MTV aesthetic was not even thought of then, and it would take 30 years until the way Anger does film would be incorporated into the mainstream music videos of acts like Nine inch nails,Marilyn Manson, etc.

The use of juxtaposing sound and film, editing them in a way that creates maximum contrast and dynamic is something every video director - directly or indirectly - has gotten from Anger. he was the first to fuse rock music and experimental films, thereby by accident creating the seed of the rock video.

Angers short films -and especially this one - has probably been more important in shaping pop and art culture than any other single short film. for that he deserves credit and recognition.