Riddles of the Sphinx

The movie starts with an intro of a woman telling the mythical story of Oedipus and the Sphinx. The movie then goes into showing a woman fixing breakfast for her child. A womans voice is heard saying one word at a time that relates to the current scene being shown. The woman in the film puts her child in bed. The camera slowly moves horizontally while loud synthetic music plays in the background. This occurs throughout the whole film.

I have seen many experimental and "art" films but during this film I became so bored that after about 45 minutes and more than half the viewing audience had left I finally got up and walked out also.

I don't recommend this movie unless you need a place to take a nap.

As Laura Mulvey's lasting legacy has been her theorization of a feminist avant-garde that eschews visual pleasure, it's hardly surprising that her famous 1977 experiment Riddles of the Sphinx is a bit difficult to digest. I certainly had a hard time watching it. But even though the film consistently tried my attention and nerves, I cannot deny that it's a wholly original work. And the more I think about it, the more I respect it, and the more--this is a bit crazy--the more I think I might like to watch it again.

The most immediately intriguing stylistic component is the slow, rotating cinematography of the film's fourth chapter. By placing a camera in an environment and confining it to a mechanical 360 degree rotation, Mulvey and Wollen offer a deliberate point of view that maintains visual interest without conforming to any traditional understanding of the filmic "gaze." This technique is most effectively employed in a scene that takes place in moving traffic, to a distinctly Children of Menesque effect; its a compelling demonstration of the spectatorial pleasure to be derived from cinematic skill as opposed to voyeurism and scopophilia.

Elsewhere, Mulvey and Wollen continue to push the boundaries of how we engage with cinema--I can say truthfully that I was far more invested in seeing two water drops reach the end of a maze than I would have been in characters chasing MacGuffins. I can't promise that you'll enjoy Riddles of the Sphinx in any traditional sense, but I can wholeheartedly recommend it to any filmmakers or artists interested in exploring new forms of expression. -TK 9/23/10

Laura is one of the most famous film theorists in history and deservedly so for her "Visual Pleasures..." paper. This film is, to my mind, a direct result of her criticism. It is a critique of visual pleasure in narrative film, and man does it feel that way. Granted, I haven't seen this film for years, but I remember it as being two of the most excruciating hours of my life. Read her work, it's brilliant, but see this film at your own risk. You have to REALLY like theory to see the whole thing, if you can even find it. First try watching Peter Greenaway's "The Falls", if you enjoy that, you might be ready for the beating that is "Riddles of the Sphinx". I excluded discussing Peter Wollen just to streamline my thoughts, he's brilliant in his own right.

Mulvey's Riddles of the Sphinx is as haunting as its title would suggest, a dizzy philosopher of a film, completely unique then and now.

The short consists of a number of short tableaux, each filmed "in the round", so to speak, by a 360 degree camera turn. Also short snippets of Mulvey herself wrestling with these "riddles" are interspersed in a few places.

The effect of these simple elements is striking--as are the colors of the cinematography. The 16mm film is as rich and deep as I've seen.

Her intent was to create an entirely new form of cinema, one made by women (hence the 360 degree shots instead of the very male, penetrating, zoom, for example). What she did create is ineffable and difficult, and important.

This film addresses the position of women in patriarchy through the prism of psychoanalysis. I love the fragmented use of text, dialog, and image, which echoes the fragmentation of unconscious thought and also subverts the usual way of filmmaking and of portraying women as sexualized objects. The film asks questions which were pertinent at the time and which still are pertinent, e.g. what issues should feminists be fighting on. It leaves these questions unanswered, instead of being a didactic film. Other parts of the film show the drudgery and mundanity of women's traditional role, subverting the idea that women might find this role 'naturally' rewarding and fulfilling. The images of the acrobats in one of the final sections are beautiful and trippy. This is an important, philosophical film.