Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

[Nothing]

More Brakhage? Shouldn't they do James Benning & Michael Snow first?

[planetjake]

Though I'm super stoked for this release I've gotta say I'm with Nothing on this. If the first Brakhage anthology did well enough to warrant a second, why hasn't Criterion tried to branch out a little bit in the Avant-Garde department? Benning and Snow would be great, but we all know that's just the tip of the ice-berg. Warhol? Gehr? The Kuchar Bros? Connor? Chambers? Mekas? Harry Smith? Rober Breer (for the love of God!!!)? The list goes on and on.

[Noiretirc]

Yeah. I'd love to see Criterion do some Warhol. The middle section of Sleep and the final part of Empire State just blow me away every single time.

Edit: The rest of this post no longer makes sense due to deletions of previous posts.

[Nothing]

Hey, who deleted my post? It was relevant to the topic at hand.

I repeat, Brakhage 2 is all very well, but if Criterion want to tread deeper into avant-garde cinema they should release sets from James Benning & Michael Snow first / as well. - Or yes, indeed, Gehr, The Kuchar Bros, Breer, etc (Warhol is already fairly well represented elsewhere).

This isn't about "why won't they release the one I want?", it's about representing a broader cross-section of the avant-garde on their label. Really odd to pretend that Brakhage is all that's out there.

[Tom Hagen]

Yeah. I'd love to see Criterion do some Warhol. The middle section of Sleep and the final part of Empire State just blow me away every single time. But let's not view more Brakhage = the expense of others. We can have our cake and eat it too. Perhaps.

So you have not only seen these films, but you a) have seen them more than once, b) can identify favorite "segments" and, c) would be willing, if not anxious, to buy these on DVD?

[Tribe]

So you have not only seen these films, but you a) have seen them more than once, b) can identify favorite "segments" and, c) would be willing, if not anxious, to buy these on DVD?

Somebody's sat through Empire State more than once?

[MichaelB]

Somebody's sat through Empire State more than once?

The long-defunct London listings magazine City Limits once ran four stills from Warhol films (including Empire), with instructions that you hold them up in front of your eyes and wobble them occasionally for seven hours or until your arms get tired.

On a less facetious note, didn't Warhol himself confirm that he'd never sat through Empire in its entirety?

[planetjake]

I repeat, Brakhage 2 is all very well, but if Criterion want to tread deeper into avant-garde cinema they should release sets from James Benning & Michael Snow first / as well. - Or yes, indeed, Gehr, The Kuchar Bros, Breer, etc (Warhol is already fairly well represented elsewhere).

This isn't about "why won't they release the one I want?", it's about representing a broader cross-section of the avant-garde on their label. Really odd to pretend that Brakhage is all that's out there.

I too thought it might be interesting to talk about why the films of Brakhage are somehow more approachable (from a home video marketing standpoint) than the works of the other filmmakers I mentioned. But I guess sarcastic posts childishly mocking one of the most important artists of the American avant-garde is more relevant?

PS: I've sat thought Empire more than once and I'll damn well do it again.

[Noiretirc]

a. My tongue was firmly planted in cheek during my previous Warhol comments.

b. Not only have I replied to now-deleted posts, but one or two of my posts have been editted in ways that make my blood boil.

But I guess sarcastic posts childishly mocking one of the most important artists of the American avant-garde is more relevant?

It was a joke, people. I love Warhol and I love the fact that those films exist, even though I may never watch them from start to end. (Well, Chelsea Girls being the exception.)

[Cinephrenic]

Speaking of experimental, is Andy Warhol film rights complicated?

[MichaelB]

I too thought it might be interesting to talk about why the films of Brakhage are somehow more approachable (from a home video marketing standpoint) than the works of the other filmmakers I mentioned.

Well, from a marketing standpoint there's little question that Brakhage is a brand to a certain extent - at least in terms of name recognition from people who might otherwise know very little about the avant-garde (in much the same way that people who know little about Surrealism could probably namecheck Salvador Dalí). So from that perspective his work is easier to sell because there is at least a "oh, hang on a minute, Brakhage is meant to be really important, isn't he?" attitude to latch onto, so you might at least get some impulse purchases out of it in a way that you almost certainly wouldn't with, say, James Benning.

Mind you, there may be all sorts of other behind-the-scenes reasons why other filmmakers haven't been given the Criterion treatment - I myself have two dream projects currently in indefinite limbo because I just can't reach accommodation with the estates of the filmmakers concerned, and the ball's currently in their court.

Also, avant-garde filmmakers can often be harder to deal with regarding commercial distribution of their work because they make most of their income from the film rental market - put this stuff out on DVD, and you not only kill off (or at least dramatically reduce) that source of income but you also make it much easier to stick it up on YouTube or Ubuweb or other unofficial conduits. Of which they're understandably highly wary.

[planetjake]

a. My tongue was firmly planted in cheek during my previous Warhol comments.

b. Not only have I replied to now-deleted posts, but one or two of my posts have been editted in ways that make my blood boil.

But I guess sarcastic posts childishly mocking one of the most important artists of the American avant-garde is more relevant?

It was a joke, people. I love Warhol and I love the fact that those films exist, even though I may never watch them from start to end. (Well, Chelsea Girls being the exception.)

I'm not good at the internet so forgive my aggressiveness. I was attempting to poke fun at the ridiculously random choices made by the Mods now and again. No real ill will towards you. If it was perceived, I apologize.

Have you watched My Hustler? It's usually what I recommend to friends who are curious about Warhol. It's somehow shocking to a lot of people that he was a filmmaker with real aesthetic concerns. In any case I'd rally like to investigate why it's Brakhage that's getting the Criterion attention. Why is it that he sticks? Is he really more approachable than someone like Lewis Klahr?

[Adam]

Brakhage 1 sold well, so they are doing a second.

Warhol would sell, but the Foundation that owns his films isn't really interested in having them get on DVD. After all these years, the only Warhol films in legit DVD releases are Mario Banana No. 1 on the new Treasures from American Film Archives No. 4, and the 13 portraits in the new DVD 13 Most Beautiful...

I wrote the head curator of the Warhol via the Frameworks email list, and he said that there are not currently any plans to bring out any more Warhol films on DVD. I don't know why.

I've been told that the first Brakhage Criterion did so much better than expected that Criterion is open to looking at other avant-garde filmmakers. Perhaps Len Lye or Hollis Frampton or Bruce Conner, at first. The Conner estate is still finishing up the preservation efforts and is just working on getting them all seen on film. Once that is done (and not before), they will look into DVD possibilities. Meanwhile, there were 2 limited run DVD of Conner films from his gallery, Michael Kohn, in Los Angeles, but both of those are long sold out. I think Lye would be the most likely, given especially that a large number of his films have now already made it to DVD via BFI.

I know someone who was trying to get Benning's films for DVD, but at that time (and perhaps still), Benning was opposed to having his films on DVD. I think you'll find this is the case with more avant-garde filmmakers than you think, as a matter of principle. But it was true of Brakhage as well, and he was able to come around before his death to realize the usefulness of having some films on DVD, as long as viewers realized that they weren't really seeing the film, but more like seeing a photo representation in a book of a painting. The real item is so much richer, but obviously most people don't have access to it. I believe Brakhage saw films on DVD the same way - the convey some elements of the film, and can also help to remind you of its full qualities after you see the real thing. The problem is when people see the DVD and only the DVD - teachers using the DVD to teach about Brakhage instead of renting the prints, and so on.And so if you feel that the full qualities of the film are only revealed by seeing the film as celluloid projected onto a screen in a darkened room, and you think that a DVD release would actually reduce the number of people who then seek out the films themselves, then your conclusion (emotionally, logically, as filmmaker) might well be to avoid DVD release forever, or as long as possible. Peter Kubelka has said quite explicitly (I heard him say so at a screening at REDCAT) that he doesn't want his films on DVD, and he is quite fine with his films dying when he dies. There are versions of them on You Tube, when people shot a print off a flatbed, and I personally think they are pretty lame. (I also think a proper Blu Ray release of Unsere Afrikareise at least would be fine and not harm the film, as long as viewers were cognizant about the essential quality of the cutting of sound & image separately, which was seen as a medium-specific quality of film more than video. But that's worthy of debate.)

(BTW, I think comments joking about Empire [not Empire State] and Sleep are fine. The films can take it. Those jokes have been made thousands of times, and the films are still around and doing fine. Just the person making the joke missing out on something. But Empire and Sleep weren't really meant to be viewed in their entirety. More power to you if you have seen them all.)

[Tribe]

(BTW, I think comments joking about Empire [not Empire State] and Sleep are fine. The films can take it. Those jokes have been made thousands of times, and the films are still around and doing fine. Just the person making the joke missing out on something. But Empire and Sleep weren't really meant to be viewed in their entirety. More power to you if you have seen them all.)

C'mon...if it wasn't meant to be seen in its entirety how is anyone missing out by not watching it more than once.

[MichaelB]

I know someone who was trying to get Benning's films for DVD, but at that time (and perhaps still), Benning was opposed to having his films on DVD. I think you'll find this is the case with more avant-garde filmmakers than you think, as a matter of principle. [...] Peter Kubelka has said quite explicitly (I heard him say so at a screening at REDCAT) that he doesn't want his films on DVD, and he is quite fine with his films dying when he dies.

I never know whether it's an advantage or a disadvantage if the filmmaker is still alive for consultation on DVD projects. Certainly, estates can be a royal pain to deal with (especially when they have little understanding of the work and are only after unrealistic amounts of money), but if the filmmaker himself is opposed to a release, then there's little or nothing you can do aside from hoping he changes his mind - as happened with Brakhage.

I'm assuming the Polish animator Jerzy Kucia had a similar change of heart, as I heard a few years ago that he was also adamantly opposed to his films coming out on DVD - but three of his films have since emerged on what I assume are 100% legitimate releases (since the PWA label is broadly equivalent to the BFI, in that it has Ministry of Culture connections - and therefore presumably isn't disposed towards bootlegging).

There are versions of them on You Tube, when people shot a print off a flatbed, and I personally think they are pretty lame.

I think filmmakers are increasingly aware of this issue - essentially, if they don't authorise their own legitimate DVD/Blu-ray releases at the highest possible quality someone else will do it for them. Which is of course blackmail at base, even though the pirates try to justify their actions by claiming that they have "a right" to see these films - but it's also a genuine problem that isn't going to be banished by a bit of finger-wagging.

What's especially annoying about the two projects I'm trying to get off the ground is that many of the films I'm after are all over YouTube in absolutely Godawful VHS-sourced copies, which grossly misrepresent the films and do their creators a serious disservice. (Believe me, I've used this argument!).

[Matt]

Shouldn't they do James Benning & Michael Snow first?

That'd be great... if Benning and Snow wanted their films on DVD, which they don't.

[Adam]

One thought, though, is that Snow is now working in video, and Benning has also said that he will henceforth work in video. I think it would be likely that they will be more open to having their works that originate on video to have DVD releases. But that is future tense (or does Corpus Callosum by Snow already have a DVD?)

But James Benning and Betzy Bromberg are the most particular people I know when it comes to how their films look. One reason Benning is willing to go to video is that he is finding it more and more difficult to get prints done of his films done how he likes them, since lab technicians & timers don't get so much 16mm film work any more and aren't as good at timing to his particulars. Betzy even has different prints for each of her films to be used depending on the type of projector bulb and it s color temperature (xenon or tungsten). So they even care about the precise color temperature of the light in their films.

Since projectionists (and projectors) always get final cut, I would think this is an potential argument for DVD (or at least Blu-Ray) releases, as they could control the mastering, but...

[Nothing]

Brakhage 1 sold well, so they are doing a second.

This is incredibly conservative thinking for Criterion, though. If the Brakhage set sold well then it follows that a Snow set (or Wavelength on it's own) would sell equally well, for example. Instead we get sequelitis. Repeating BFI releases would be equally questionable, btw.

the only Warhol films in legit DVD releases are Mario Banana No. 1 on the new Treasures from American Film Archives No. 4, and the 13 portraits in the new DVD 13 Most Beautiful...

There's plenty more Warhol available from the Rialto label in Italy.

I know someone who was trying to get Benning's films for DVD, but at that time (and perhaps still), Benning was opposed to having his films on DVD.

I know. He has since forsaken film and moved to shooting on HD, however. Along with the advent of Blu-ray, this seems like the perfect moment to get his back catalogue in front of a real audience. If a company like Criterion made an offer, that's surely something anyone but a total idiot would take seriously.

[stereo]

There's plenty more Warhol available from the Rialto label in Italy.

There is much dispute over the legitimacy of the Italian Warhol sets; still, an absolute must own.

[ptmd]

I know. He has since forsaken film and moved to shooting on HD, however. Along with the advent of Blu-ray, this seems like the perfect moment to get his back catalogue in front of a real audience. If a company like Criterion made an offer, that's surely something anyone but a total idiot would take seriously.

Not necessarily. Many, most actually, of the people mentioned above do not want the films that were made on film to exist on DVD for very legitimate reasons ranging from the quality of projected light vs. video light to color distortion and concerns over print rentals. That includes Michael Snow, James Benning, Ernie Gehr, Peter Kubelka, as well as people who haven't been mentioned like Nathaniel Dorsky. Snow, for example, is adamant that the original, full-length version of Wavelength should never be on DVD, although he did make a reduced 15-minute video version that he jokingly says is for people who don't have the time or patience to see the whole thing.

The sole authorized distributor of Warhol films is the Museum of Modern Art and the Warhol Foundation does not want the films transferred to DVD (the Raro discs are technically illegal and many are transferred at the wrong speed). Even the film prints of most Warhol films were out of circulation until a few years ago. Precisely because of the very particular attention many avant-garde filmmakers pay to the projection situation, arranging a DVD release can be much more difficult than negotiating the rights for a feature film.

That said, a lot of the Frampton films have been restored and I understand that the family is open to a DVD release if somebody is interested in doing it right. That seems to me like the logical next step for Criterion, possibly after they release the Lye films the BFI has recently put out on DVD.

But really, these complaints about Brakhage 2 seem rather silly to me; not only because he remains such a towering figure, but also because his body of work is enormous. Even after both sets are out, less than 15% of his films will be on DVD and there are literally dozens of very important titles that there simply isn't room for.

[stereo]

If you want Michael Snow, try Ubuweb. Make your own DVD.
http://www.ubu.com/film/snow.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ptmd]

I don't want to spark a whole discussion about Ubuweb here, but suffice it to say that the vast majority of the films they put up are bootleg video clips uploaded without the consent (and often against the wishes) of the filmmakers. That certainly applies to the Snow films.

[stereo]

ehh, whatever, I'm just happy to get to see them at all; I fail to see how invisibility serves the artist except to build artificial value through scarcity (as well as promote piracy). It's hard to make an artistic statement through secondary sources and heresay. I know, I know, legality/auteur intent, but my two cents are for the sake of art, the more visibility, the better. Fear of digitalization is mind numbing. Transfer it, put it out there, make your money, promote the work, change the world, etc., etc. I'm not impressed by the Luddite argument whether it comes from from a genius artist or estate guardians.

[knives]

Could it be possible for them to put out there own DVDs like Lynch did with Eraserhead? That should get them more then enough creative freedom when doing things to the transfer.

[stereo]

Frederick Wiseman is doing just that through Zipporah films as is Les Blank through Flower Films.