Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaWhat is experimental film, and why is it called that? Artists and poet working in celluloid since before WWI have always found themselves in a no man's land. Excluded both from the art world... Leggi tuttoWhat is experimental film, and why is it called that? Artists and poet working in celluloid since before WWI have always found themselves in a no man's land. Excluded both from the art world and from the film industry, they bodly created a grassroots network for making and showin... Leggi tuttoWhat is experimental film, and why is it called that? Artists and poet working in celluloid since before WWI have always found themselves in a no man's land. Excluded both from the art world and from the film industry, they bodly created a grassroots network for making and showing their films. They also created a profound body of work that continues to influence our c... Leggi tutto
Foto
- Self - Filmmaker
- (filmato d'archivio)
- Self - Filmmaker
- (filmato d'archivio)
- Self - Artist
- (filmato d'archivio)
- Self - Filmmaker
- (filmato d'archivio)
- Self - Artist & Filmmaker
- (filmato d'archivio)
Recensioni in evidenza
Just as I was about to give up hope there would be any sort of documentary at all, Chodorov got down to the business of talking about other people. While he briefly discusses works throughout the history of film, he is mainly focused on a few New York experimental filmmakers.
The movie is a mix of interviews and clips along with some general context. I'm not big on underground cinema (although I did like the namesake clip, Free Radicals and the works the guy who did the Gilliam- style - before Gilliam - cutout animation), but if you are, clips tend to be generously long, letting audiences fully appreciate the works. The interviews are generally interesting.
There isn't much shape to this movie, as the director feels letting you hear the filmmakers and see their works is all you need. The closest thing to a them is that experimental film making is the least lucrative art of the avant-garde.
If you're really interesting in the subject, or you don't realize that you would be fascinated by experimental film if you just saw some, you'll probably really enjoy this. But while some documentary makers can bring any subject to life for any audience, that's not the case here. How much you like this will depend a lot on how much you want to like it.
Pip Chodorov made this film about art/avant garde films. Because it's more of a homage, it's not a true history and isn't exhaustive. Fortunately, Chodorov acknowledges this and admits that the film does not talk about all the important art films or art film makers.
So who is the audience? After all, most folks hate art films and have very little appreciation for them. I like art films much more than the average person and I must admit that some of them I can't stand either! So, this is a hard-sell film--and I can see why Turner Classic Movies showed it very late at night! But, for the right person, this film is clearly a must-see.
*** (out of 4)
Good documentary covering a brief history of the experimental films that gained popularity over the past four decades, although the avant-garde cinema has been around for as long as film has. If you're familiar with names like Stan Brakhage, Robert Breer, Maurice Lemaitre and Ken Jacobs then you're really going to enjoy this documentary because you get to hear from them as well as various other filmmakers who create these types of films. If you're unaware of these names then you're still going to have a good time watching this because you're going to get to see some great film clips and learn a little bit of history. The "A" in the title is a strong one to pay attention to because the film doesn't set out to the "the" history of experimental films but instead just a certain aspect of it. I think someone like Georges Meliels could have been included here and there are some other famous early avant-garde films that are not mentioned. Instead, the documentary really focuses on films that happened after WWII and this is where the before mentioned names come into play. There's also talk about some of the hard times that these filmmakers would face as there's certainly not much funding for these types of movies and there are even smaller crowds willing to watch them.
Most of the filmmakers seem to have a full of it attitude. Yet as you sift through the junk you can find some gems. The question is, is it worth it? There is some footage on Maya Deren not found in other presentations. Here experiments are better viewed in "Maya Deren: Experimental Films."
Soon you find all experiments but all the experiments in this presentation blending into one big one. It makes Monty Python look good.
The film was shot on 8mm, Super-8mm, 15mm, and super-16mm.
The init is a good source of filmmaker names but not worth going through the chaff.
Lo sapevi?
- ConnessioniFeatures Viaggio nella luna (1902)
I più visti
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- Wolne cząsteczki: Historia filmu eksperymentalnego
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 590.000 € (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 3804 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 1350 USD
- 5 ago 2012
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 3804 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 20 minuti
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 1.66 : 1