Narratives in Experimental Films?

Well today in small groups we talked alot about the film Variations. People seemed to really like it overall, but nearly all agreed that it was strictly experimental, and had no notions toward narration. I can see their point and overall I agree, but I can also see how argumewnts can be made for both sides. The pictures were all random, untied images of everyday items, only viewed in a new way. I think some experimental films can have narration, but I didn't see anything in this one. Of course, then you get to the question, what is narrative? I took the liberty of looking up definitions online, and was interested to see that nearly everyone has a different opinion of this word! The simplest definition I found is this:
1) having a story or idea.

Simple enough; maybe a little TOO simple. For instance, WHOSE story is it? WHAT kind of story? I like this one a little better:

2)a descriptive account of a specific event or series of events

Except, does it truly have to be descriptive? Does this mean I have to tell everything that happens? Or can a narrative be implied? For instance, if I am talking about Variations, with tons of random images thrown together, there is nothing descriptive about that. Does that mean it is not narrative? I don't think so. I think you can have a narrative that is more implied than spoken or laid out for you, or in other words "described".

I felt this one was the best, and it seems to allow for a narrative in experimental film:

3) A complex term referring to a sequence of events organized into a story with a particular structure

In other words, a structured idea built by events. Variations didn't have much structure, since it wasn't telling a story, or at least not a story that we are used to hearing, but it was a sequence of events, and there was certainly a theme. The theme was appreciating the little mundane things in life and being able to see them differently. Perhaps even to show us that there is art in the world all around us, if we would only stop and look. We often go through life without paying attention to the wonders around us. Variations was trying to show us what we were missing. Is this not an idea, and are these not e vents? But there was no real structure of images throughout the film. (Or perhaps even that can be argued!) But I didn't see any in the film.

Now if we move on from here to other experimental films, like say Market Street, is there narrative there? I think so. This narrative was more implied than "described". It was structured as well, leading us through all aspects of the street, and even culminating in a brief long shot of the road that we had seen fragmented throughout the film. The events could be the pictures that were flashed before our eyes, but that could also be the patterns that were created with those pictures, creating circles and grids and lines. Maybe this wasn't telling a story outright, but it was a series of events in a structured order, and in a way it showed us Market Street. Is this any different than a documentary film that decides to tell us about Market Street outright? Is this perhaps not even more interesting to watch? In a sense we are made to feel how those on Market Street feel, to the extent that no other documentary film could ever make us feel just talking about the street. The harried pictures and the patterns created seemed to lead us to believe that Market Street was an important area, perhaps always busy, but still structured and not without purpose in the community. We could be told this through a strict "story" but we could also be implied this through a more abstract storytelling, like seen in experimental film. They both have their place, and both, I think are narrative.

This of course, does not mean that every experimental film is narrative. I find that several are, but just as many are not. Some are strictly about artistic images and testing new technologies, whereas others are like a video poetry; they tell the story in a more abstract, almost hidden way. Sometimes this way can be better, just like sometimes poetry can be better than a book. Then again, as much as I enjoy writing poetry and will occasionally read a few poems (but not often) I will still pick up a good book over a poem any day. Perhaps it's preference and preference only. Perhaps not.

As for "can experimental show up in narrative"? I say, isn't this what we were just discussing? If we can say that experimental film is meant to show art and test new technologies rather than tell a story, but it can STILL have a narrative anyhow, then certainly narrative films can use experimental aspects in its narrative. In fact, what would narrative film be without experimental aspects? The very word "experimental" implied something untested, and unknown whether or not it will work. In other words, new territory. Granted, alot of Hollywood films would probably not want to use experimental aspects in their films because it IS untried, and they are about the guaranteed buck. But other films can be experimental and narrative in one. I truthfully still prefer Hollywoodized structured storylines, but this is because I love stories. I love to write them especially. I love creating worlds and situations and interlating all the characters. But this does not mean there is not room for experimental ideas in narrative film. Sometimes it can work. One film I felt did this well was one we saw last semester in Film 210. I think it was a Hitchcock film, but I don't remember the title. I just know it was not film noir but it felt greatly like it and it used the German Expressionism of abstract patterns and dreamlike sequences to show the man's fantasies. Things like this can truly add to narrative films. As long as there is a balance these two can coexist, but the balance has to be carefully maintained. Then again, if experimental film wants to stay random and daring and artistic like some of the films we saw in class, there is no room for something like that in narrative film. It would just make no sense, because narrative film has structure and experimental film can often have no structure. Therefore any random experimental images that are thrown into a narrative film become narrative because they must add to the overall story...or else it would no longer be a narrative film!

First Response for Class Day Jan 29th

Well I've had some real annoying problems with Blogger, but I think it's working now? We shall see.

Anyways, my first blog on class stuff we watched today follows:


First off, I thought it was pretty enlightening to be able to see the difference between the 24 fps and the 18 fps that we saw today. It was pretty obvious when the film was only white, but once we saw the actual film it didn't actually look all that different to me. I guess that means I need more experience in watching film types projected. I should have been able to see the difference, but I couldn't.

Second, I really enjoyed "Market Place". I think I may have seen it before, at UW Waukesha, before I attended here. I was in a film class there also, and we saw his film, or something very like it, if it wasn't this one in particular. I don't remember going into much detail when we saw it at UWW, but here it seemed we made more critical thoughts into the processing of the film. For instance, we were not told that the film was shot frame by frame, and we were not told about the circles and patterns on the animation lens (I think is what Carl said). I noticed this in the film this time around, though. THe one segment where the circles were prevalent, the clock and the sign, etc all seemed to not only stick on the same circle, but masterfully the circle moved in a circle of its own as well, even while the circles themselves stayed together. I thought it was pretty cool. It was really the first time I've truly appreciated experimental film. Perhaps because this one actually seemed to take extra thought and genuine effort to pull off. I don't think art should be anything easy, and to me, nomatter how well you explain an abstract art, if it wasn't difficult to create, how is it art? Like the guy that took the random news footage and didn't do anything to it, but left it alone and called it art under his name. Who does that?! How is this claimed as art? Perhaps news is art in itself, a mofre practical art form of course, but still art...but just because random footage from rejected news issues was found by you, doesn't mean it's suddenly your art. Especially when you didn't even touch it yourself. That makes no sense to me, just like throwing undeveloped film into a purse and opening and closing the bag to light cannot be called art. Anyone can do that. Heck, I could have taken an unexposed film strip and walked it around in my semi lit closet and called it great art based on my closet. but it isn't art. You didn't plan anything really, and if you did it sure doens't look like it. I've done abstract art myself and I'vde done well at it...but I've also done greatly envolved paintings with elaborate colors and careful lighting. Which one do you think was harder to do? Heck yes. Anyone can slap paint on a canvas, even I can. That doesn't make it true art. True art is concieved over time, brainstorming, and careful planning. Yes, abstract art is still art. I just don't think it's GREAT art. You can stand before me all you want and tell me how cool your process was, but if all I see on the screen is a red and yellow overexposed blur, then I couldn't care less what you were thinking when you made it. I'd rather say what were you drinking....

Anyways, enough of that. My other favorite piece was the nature one in the woods. I forget the name, it was too wierd. Wot the Sod or something. But I liked it alot. It too was abstract, but you could tell more thought went into it than the others. She focused on the leaves and because she pulled so close and kept moving the camera like it was alive, the leaves seemed to come alive. One looked like a skull, and you could tell the filmmaker thought so, too because she kept getting new angles of it, and she seemed to like the shock value of its horrific "face". Another looked to me like a butterfly and it made me feel free and beautiful just looking at it. Others were also funny...the laughing leaves, in which the camera was used to help the illusion by moving it up and down in a laughing motion, the dragonlike faced leaves, adn the pinto horsehead. A few looked like insects. This abstract art I can appreciate because it truly DID do what it claimed to...make you see the forest in a whole new way. To me it seemed it glorified Christ, playing with your minds as it showed an inanimate object as having life, and often humorously at that.