Joseph Cornell

This post is part of the Avant-Garde Blog-A-Thon. Please scroll down for a complete list of links.
Joseph Cornell is sometimes cited as the foremost American Surrealist artist but he was never a card-carrying member of the movement, but instead more of a fellow traveler. What Cornell didn’t take from the movement was its erotic celebration, occasional unleashing of repressed violence, and active scandal-seeking and self-promotion. Instead, his work drew upon the basic Surrealist principle of the juxtaposition of unlikelies—“as beautiful as the chance meeting on a dissecting table of a sewing machine and an umbrella,” as Lautréamont put it. Also, like pre-Surrealist Dadaists like Marcel Duchamp and Kurt Schwitters, he was drawn to found objects.
Cornell is known primarily for his collages and his assemblages (glass-fronted “shadow boxes”). His experimental films were not much appreciated in his lifetime, especially because he was diffident about them, sensitive to criticism, and reluctant to screen them often. But they’ve acquired a formidable reputation since his death in 1972. Cornell was a devoted collector of 'small things' all his life, often objects that he found in junk-shops; he employed these objects in his art. He also collected films, often celluloid bought by the pound, for example, at flea markets.
The usual route to becoming an artist in the pre-modern age was through drawing, painting or sculpture. But after Cubism invented collage, would-be artists like the untrained Cornell were offered a new way into the art world. Remarkably, he never learned to operate a movie camera—all his films were found-footage constructions, a form he pioneered.
The Children’s Trilogy—which comprises the films The Children’s Party, Cotillion, and The Midnight Party—was conceived in the late thirties and completed in the late sixties. The three films total a mere twenty minutes, and are assembled from the same material, but are packed with great images and ideas. The source material footage is a fascinating mélange of: a children’s party; circus performers and animal acts; science documentary, etc. Cornell cuts freely and intuitively from one to the other, and the first viewing leaves you a little puzzled. A second look reveals all manner of visual rhyming—e.g. a circus strong-man lifts a chair with his teeth/kids apple-dunk at a party; or children fling confetti about/a chorus girl plays flamboyantly with feathers. There are startling contrasts, like a static shot of a metal door (cold/forbidding) cutting to the close-up of an amoeba in expansive motion (warm/organic). And an image of a twirling ballet dancer, overexposed against a pitch-black background, becomes an abstract pattern of fluid shapes, as if it were quicksilver darting about on a Petri dish.
At one point, there is, curiously, footage of a little girl on a horse who is playing Godiva in a pageant and appears to be unclothed under her thick long tresses. It’s an innocent image that is also a tad unsettling. This is generally true of Cornell—there is great innocence and yearning and delicacy in his images, but they contain little spiky dissonances without ever shading into either carnal or outright disturbing. P. Adams Sitney notes:
In a way, Cornell’s wit is like that of Hans Christian Andersen, who can tell a story about an Emperor who exposes himself to a whole city, and especially to a little girl, without the readers noticing what is happening in the story. Successive generations of parents have proven the moral of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” by seeing only the moral and blinding themselves to the exhibitionism. The children to whom they read it tend to titter; they understand what it is about.
Cornell’s best-known film is Rose Hobart, a re-editing of an obscure B-movie jungle drama called East Of Borneo (1931) starring the equally obscure actress who gives the film its title. He stripped it of sound and eliminated all the strong plot points—a journey upriver through the jungle, a volcanic explosion—and instead edited together, blithely ignoring linearity and continuity and following only his poetic instinct, a collection of reaction shots, gestures, expressions, and other images that we’d normally not think of as 'important.' Sitney writes:
Cornell’s montage is startlingly original. Nothing like it occurs in the history of the cinema until thirty years later. The deliberate mismatching of shots, the reduction of conversations to images of the actress without corresponding shots of her interlocutor, and the sudden shifts of location were so daring in 1936 that even the most sophisticated viewers would have seen the film as inept rather than brilliant. […] [He] used some shots just as they were fading out or just as a door was closing, omitting the main action.
By wrenching the images out of their narrative function, he suddenly freed them, making them instruments of suggestion. (How liberating for the viewer.)
There is a technique Cornell uses in The Children's Trilogy that may be mined for some insight into his strategies. He inserts title cards but only holds them for a frame or two, with the result that they fly by in a flash and are impossible to read. On the other hand, he’ll take an ordinary image—a boy sleeping or a girl sneezing—and will freeze-frame it and hold it, forcing us to examine every inch of it with care. In other words, elements of the film that might provide information about plot, character, narrative causality, etc., are purposely de-emphasized, while our eyes are redirected to stay with ‘unexceptional’ images on their own and in conjunction with other images (through montage), so that they start to appear anything but banal. Perhaps this is one key function of avant-garde cinema—to get us to spend time paying attention to something 'familiar' until it turns into something unfamiliar.
- Acquarello at Strictly Film School.
- Mubarak Ali at Supposed Aura.
- Brendon Bouzard at My Five Year Plan.
- Chris Cagle at Category D.
- Zach Campbell at Elusive Lucidity.
- Matthew Clayfield at Esoteric Rabbit.
- Culture Snob.
- Brian Darr at Hell On Frisco Bay.
- Filmbrain at Like Anna Karina's Sweater.
- Jim Flannery at A Placid Island of Ignorance.
- Flickhead.
- Richard Gibson.
- Ed Gonzalez at Slant.
- Michael Guillen at The Evening Class.
- Tom Hall at The Back Row Manifesto.
- Ian W. Hill at Collisionwork.
- Andy Horbal at No More Marriages!
- David Hudson at Greencine Daily.
- Darren Hughes at Long Pauses.
- Lucas at 100 Films.
- Jennifer Macmillan at Invisible Cinema.
- Peter Nellhaus at Coffee Coffee and More Coffee.
- David Pratt-Robson at Videoarcadia.
- Seadot at An Astronomer in Hollywood.
- Michael Sicinski at The Academic Hack.
- Michael S. Smith at Culturespace.
- Squish at The Film Vituperatum.
- Tom Sutpen at If Charlie Parker Was a Gunslinger.
- That Little Round-Headed Boy.
- Thom at Film Of The Year.
- Chuck Tryon at The Chutry Experiment.
- Harry Tuttle at Screenville. (Also here.)
- Walter at Quiet Bubble.

131 Comments:
Tomorrow morning, and periodically through the day, I'll be checking Bloglines (my RSS reader) and updating my post. If I happen to miss your post, please drop me an email or leave me a comment. Thanks.
I'll be at least a day behind the others with my contribution for this event. Most of this week, I've been recovering from the Auckland International Film Festival which ended on Sunday. Really looking forward to doing some fun blog-a-thon reading in the coming days!
I had no idea Cornell made films.
I'll be a day late with my post, too. As I mentioned back in -- what was it, May? -- I'd find myself on August 1st, wondering what exactly I'd write about. And here I am, stuck at a friend's house with all my resources contained within a laptop with a dead battery...
Mubarak and David ~ Take all the time you need. I'll make sure to republish after you post.
I probably should have mentioned in my article that both Brakhage and Jordan were mentored by Cornell.
Mine will come later tonight! Just scanning over & beginning to read posts now, more comments on everyone's will follow. Looks like a fun couple days' worth of reading will result ...
Fascinating write-up, Girish. Are these works available for viewing anywhere?
I think you're on the mark when you write about de-emphasis of narrative elements in avant-garde cinema, girish. We're so used to following the narrative that we often miss the beauty in other elements of a film unless we see it more than once. The avant-garde want to skip that multiple viewing track and force us to focus on the non-narrative elements right away. Good post.
G, Joseph Cornell is one of my favorites. I love the birds and astronomy imagery in his work. He did collaborate with Stan Brakhage and Rudy Burckhardt as his cinematographers, but you are right, he never shot a film with a camera.
Have you heard the story of how Joseph Cornell's first screening of Rose Hobart? Salvador Dali was in attendance! When the film began, Dali became enraged, he knocked over the projector, and declared that Cornell had stolen his dreams! Or so the story goes...
I really enjoyed your observations about Cornell & Hans Christian Anderson, the Emperor's New Clothes, childhood and innocence. It's very right on!
I stll haven't read Visionary Film. Ssshhh
I'd never come across this film maker, so thanks for sharing this Girish. As always after reading one is keen to seek out some material.
Which brings me on to my second point mm I misremembering but did someone say they or we even were going to keep track on how many of the avant garde film makers were available via DVD?
Wonderful Dali story, Jennifer!!
Merci, tout le monde.
Maya ~ I caught Rose Hobart at George Eastman House, and the Children's Trilogy is on the Unseen Cinema 7-DVD set, which I picked up used on amazon and is probably the best seventy bucks I've spent in years. I love this thing. (It's also at Netflix.)
Thom ~ Thanks for joining us. I just re-published and linked to your post, in the process discovering your site. What an utterly cool idea for a blog! I look forward to keeping up with it.
J. ~ I realize Cornell's revered in a-g circles, but I hadn't seen any of his work until recently, which is why I decided to read a biography of him and catch up with some of his films. The blog-a-thon gave me a deadline to do all that.
Visionary Film is a blast--I've only just started reading it but it's a very inspirational book--his close and attentive descriptions of the films are really something! You'd love it, Jen...
Richard ~ Perhaps this blog-a-thon will give us a better idea of what works are out there and available, which would be nice...
Sorry, I think I'll be late too. Somehow I registered "august 3rd"... Maybe tomorrow, or I'll split my contribution over 2 posts.
Nice turnout so far!
Harry ~ Take your time. There are many heavy-hitters still to come (Zach, Mubarak, David, etc) and you'll be in good company! :-)
Man this thing's really taking off! What a perfect way of expanding my blog bookmarks, (not to mention my readership :P)
When's the next one :D
As far as I know, the next one would be Friz Freleng on Aug 21 at Brian's place, Hell On Frisco Bay. (He's on my blogroll, to the left, and even has a current post about it.)
YES, you can order Cornell films on DVD! One of the great Cornell box collectors, Robert Lehrman, did a great book and DVD-ROM about Cornell's history and art; then followed up by releasing a DVD of the films. You can get a package with both DVDs for $35 from the Voyager Foundation via their website:
http://www.voyager-foundation.org/video.html
They are both phenomenal and the DVD-ROM is by far the best multimedia presentation ever made about any artist -- bar none. The film DVD includes the following films:
Nymphlight, 1957
Angel, 1957
Jack's Dream, ca. late 1930s
Centuries of June, 1955
'Cotillion' and 'The Midnight Party', ca. 1938
The Aviary, 1954
Bookstalls, ca. late 1930s
Rose Hobart, 1936
A Legend for Fountains, 1957 / 1965
- Larry Jordan's short film Cornell, 1965, which includes the only known movie footage of Cornell himself.
Awesome news, Paul.
Thank you!
Okay, I'm on! I just sent you an e-mail, just in case!
I love Cornell. I've always felt a connection with him in my tendencies to make little light boxes, collages, films and whatnot. It's like trying to capture and preserve a butterfly in mid-flight, without destroying the butterfly. Though I can't help but find his fascination with little girls a touch on the...uncomfortable side.
I recently watched a documentary on Henry Darger. He reminded me a bit of Cornell (random pre-bedtime thought).
Anyway, cheers!
Thanks, seadot. Just added your post, and updated.
Yeah, the little-girl thing is a touch unsettling, but not quite as much as Darger perhaps...
Also, his biographer reports that Cornell lived with his mother and mentally handicapped brother (on Utopia Parkway) pretty much all his life, and died (just a few years after they did) a virgin.
Which makes all his quasi-chaste longing for women (Lauren Bacall, Hedy Lamarr, Garbo, etc) interesting.
Congrats to all involved! I have to say, I have learned so much reading all of you today, it has been thrilling to find so many people so seriously engaged in thinking about film. This is my first Blog-A-Thon, so maybe I am just giddy with the collective effort of it all, but I am still reading posts at 1am and have no interest in sleeping any time soon.
Thanks, Girish, for having me and alerting me to the event. Quite an honor to be listed here.
Tom
PS- I liked In The Realms of The Unreal quite a bit and was never weirded out by Darger's little girl fetish as it seemed completely desexualized to me. Those damned Glandalinians!
Girish, I'm finally finished with my piece on Bruce Conner! whew!
Love the Cornell article. I still need to see these films, and am glad they're available. I have the book and DVD-ROM too, but have yet to delve into the latter.
Someone asked about the next blog-a-thon. To my knowledge it's this Friday, August 4 at Film Ick: Terry Gilliam. My Freleng Blog-A-Thon announcement is found here.
Thank you, Tom and Brian.
You know, last week, I was pretty sure we'd crack no more than a half dozen, and here we are with a small mountain of wonderfully varied reading that will keep us busy for a while.
I was on the phone with a friend last night, describing what blogs and blog-a-thons were, and I told her that if I were a schoolgirl, I'd be drawing "I Heart Blogs" in my notebook right now.
A few more to come today that I know of...
The only problem with this particular blog-a-thon is that my number of Bloglines subscriptions just jumped again (and I was already feeling overwhelmed by the scores of new posts that greet me every time I open it). It's nice to see so many new faces around here.
With all the recent talk about the death of traditional film criticism, I have to say that it feels pretty satisfying to participate in a critical dialogue that would never have been possible without film blogs.
Speaking of disturbing child imagery. . .
A day late, but my piece on Shuji Terayama's Emperor Tomato Ketchup is up.
Oh, and ditto Darren's comment above. Couldn't agree more.
Ah, great. Just updated.
Had no idea that's what where Stereolab nicked the name; it's my favorite of their records.
I'm glad we're having the blog-a-thon now rather than three or four days ago: I was skating on very thin bandwidth ice at the end of the month, and the site would've gone down for sure from the traffic spike, and that would've been a total mess.
What a turnout! I've read several already and will start commenting after I get some much-needed sleep. My Arthur Lipsett piece is up now here.
Rose Hobart has been on my list of Movies To See for AGES, maybe this will motivate me to go find it by now!
I'm a day late as well, but have an avant-garde related post up at Category D.
Great idea for a blog carnival, by the way.
Sorry for missing the deadline. Here is my contribution with the first post (with more aspects later hopefully) on Barney's DR9, a review I've been postponing for too long.
Now off to read some of these blogs and to catch up with the discussions.
Thanks, everyone.
Just updated, and republished.
Back to reading. (There's a lot. And I read slow.)
Okay, I'm getting google-eyed from all the reading, so I think I'll go out to the movies now to catch the Altman. If you see any posts that I haven't picked up yet, please leave me a message.
Just added Matt Clayfield (whose presence in the blogosphere I've been missing these past few months!)
G., I hope that you'll have a beer today . . . This must have been a workout for you as well as your computer . . . Thanks!
:)
J. ~ You wanna hear something crazy? Last night, I dreamed not about avant-garde cinema but about avant-garde cinema blog posts!
That's when you know it's time to take a little breather. I've told myself I'll read for no more than an hour each day for the next few days.
And it's only 10 am and I've barely had my Cheerios but I think I might start the weekend early and pour myself a Corona with lime....
Just in case y'all don't have enough reading to do:
new issue of Senses of Cinema.
Darren looks forward to the Toronto Intenational Film Festival.
Might as well post this here: I have to go out of town for several days and won't get to finish commenting on blog entries (I was at least hoping to comment on everyone's) until next weekend. Hope everything is fun & productive in my absence ... but not too much so! Girish, the comment for yours will have to be #1 on the agenda when I get back ...
Take your time, Zach; and have a good trip.
What a wonderful response to your blogathon, Girish! You are truly the master facilitator among us and--like Darren--I'm so pleased to be part of this experience and to have learned so much.
It's amazing that Cornell saw an artistic interest in discarded film strips so early in the young history of Cinema. It's like if art was ready to recycle it before cinema gained its own art status.
Your description reminds me of the imagery and clash transitions of René Claire's Entr'Acte (1924) and Germaine Dulac's The Seashell and The Clergyman (1928). Sounds quite in line with Kubelka and the austrian found-footage school, do you know if they cite him? I admit it's the first time I hear this name.
I wish I had seen any of his films... your appreciation and analysis is beautiful to read though.
Thanks for the post and for this successful blogathon Girish!
Darren : "With all the recent talk about the death of traditional film criticism, I have to say that it feels pretty satisfying to participate in a critical dialogue that would never have been possible without film blogs."
ditto for me too
Thank you, Michael & Harry--you're too kind. My end was the easy part--you all were the ones who did the heavy lifting. So, thank you.
Harry ~ I knew nothing of Cornell, and thought it would an opportunity to be exposed to something new. I haven't seen the films you mention, or any Kubelka. I have great hunger to see avant-garde cinema, but partly because of where I live, I don't get to very much. It's one of my great cinephilic regrets.
Michael ~ Thought you might like to know--Jenni Olson left a comment on the "long take" thread last night; nice of her to do that.
Andy's weekend roundup post, including his idea to call for and host a film-criticism blog-a-thon late in the year.
Girish, I'm so glad Jenni has responded to your site. She has recognized, like the rest of us, that there is no better forum for the discussion of film than this space.
Aw, thanks, Michael.
Such a marvelous collection of reading. Still have a lot to catch up with since it demands a lot of concentration - there's so much new knowledge. Lettrism, for example. It was Acquarello's lovely post on Maurice Lemaitre that introduced me to it and hence the connection with Girish's writing on Cornell. According to "lettrism", cinema is dead, or more appropriately - about to die. It is over-complicated, over-used, on the verge of explosion. In this sense, avant-garde is its saver - it deconstructs it to its archetypes, thus making it compatible with innovation once again. When Girish says,
"Perhaps this is one key function of avant-garde cinema—to get us to spend time paying attention to something 'familiar' until it turns into something unfamiliar."
it is, probably, this deconstruction that he's speaking of (or I'm mastaken?), which counterweighs cinema's inclination towards self-destruction (through satiation and then remoteness from its origins). So, the avant-garde directs us towards the non-narrative and everything else we might miss out, but it also establishes a balanced terrain for cinema to evolve. It allows cinema to achieve immortality by dissecting it to its foetus, thus being reborn over and over again.
Girish, I'm sorry if I twist your words too much. This blog-a-thon is very much my thorough dive into experimental cinema and would like to thank you and everybody else for your knowledgeable and lively essays. These gatherings are truly unique. Great work!
Hey Marina, Bulgarian Cine Daily: is that a site modeled after GreenCine Daily, but in Bulgarian?
Andy, yes. It's actually pointed on the top of the page, but...in Bulgarian. It's started pretty soon, but with a vacation and some trips - it's a bit stif right now.
Marina ~ I guess what I was struggling to say in that last line of the post was something like this:
Often, in regular, narrative cinema, much of the content of the frame at any point doesn't register with great force or at least, a force that demands and receives extended contemplation from the viewer. Instead, the content of the frame serves an almost utilitarian function, filling out the frame to set a context in order to serve in one way or another, the needs of narrative, character development, etc. But the same objects and figures in the frame, liberated from the slavery of that "utilitarian" funtion in a-g cinema, can now register strongly and receive greater attention and contemplation from the viewer. So, we go from ignoring (or not paying extended attention to) so much of the ("familiar") content in the frame to having time to contemplate the mise-en-scene at length until all its detail registers and surprises us (making the familiar unfamiliar). At least, that's the feeling I sometimes get when watching a-g cinema.
And btw, here's an attempt at defining the term avant-garde/experimental cinema by Fred Camper, thanks to Harry.
I can't believe how fast the summer has flown--just three more weeks before classes start up again. Today, I'm making my last movie road trip of the summer, before TIFF, to Toronto to catch a Mizoguchi/Antonioni double bill. (A Woman Of Rumour/Zabriskie Point, neither of which I've seen before.)
As always, please feel free to post links, chat, make yourselves at home.
I was having some issues with Blogger yesterday, so the above comment didn't appear till this morning.
Here's Mubarak in a report from the Auckland filmfest.
Got nothing to say about the avant-garde, but Joseph Cornell happens to be the title of a
GREAT SONG by one of my favorite bands, The Clientele
I hope you like Zabriskie Point on the big screen as much as I did last fall. And that Mizoguchi is one we're not getting here at the PFA's series that starts up on Friday, unfortunately.
Brian, that double bill was astounding; I'm still speechless. Although I hope I won't be for too long, coz I'd like to blog it.
Barry, I've never heard of the Clientele, but I'll be glad to listen.
Clicks:
--Jim Emerson excerpts a dozen "World Trade Center" reviews.
--Filmbrain on "WTC".
--MZS: "Deeper Into Images".
--Owen Hatherley on Wim Wenders.
--Victor Morton, a.k.a "Rightwing Filmgeek," responds to that Ingmar Bergman/John Simon interview excerpt I posted a while back.
--Jen posts a bit of Jonas Mekas.
--A fistful of new movie capsule posts at Steve Carlson's.
--Lots of good reading: the new issue of Reverse Shot.
--At Zach's: the classic Gjon Mili jazz short Jammin' The Blues. (If you watch this film and dislike it, I promise I'll buy you a beer.)
There's a close-up of guitarist Barney Kessel's fingers as he solos; he's the only white musician in the film and it's said that he was placed in the shadows and his hands colored with dark berry juice for his skin color to blend in with everyone else. The dark jitterbugging silhouettes against a monochromatic light background were, I suspect, inspirations 50 years later for both the Gap ads and the title sequence of Mulholland Drive.
Just a thought on a future blog-a-thon based on some postings done a while back: Woman filmmakers. Maybe everyone could contribute a piece on an individual film or a career overview.
I dibs Leni Riefenstahl!!!
Ah yes, I remember doing a poll/post on that in the days of infancy of this blog; it's a special interest of mine. Perhaps in a few months (winter, maybe) I'll try to issue a call.
re: a women filmmakers blog-a-thon. I support that idea. I'll write about Alice Guy.
Thanks for that link to Jammin' the Blues; you just made my afternoon, Girish.
Seconding the praise. That's a great short.
Women directors, huh? I could write about Jane Campion (or at least An Angel at the Table--always a pleasure to watch that one again).
Diggin' the "Woman filmmakers" idea. My first thought is to write something called "Upon discovering that Carol Reed was not, in fact, a woman filmmaker. . . ."
Think I'd love to do Claire Denis or Chantal Akerman but I might get killed by Darren and Acquarello (respectively) for claiming dibs on either of 'em! :-)
Seriously though, as Peter suggested, we don't have to do an entire oeuvre, even just a film if we want to...so we could easily "share" a filmmaker...
Give me a few months, and I'll do an announcement post. Might be just the thing to warm up a Buffalo winter for a few days.
Girish, fantastic write-up. (Whew, and still so many more left to get back to and comment on!) I think Joseph Cornell is one of the 20th century's major artists; the Art Institute of Chicago's collection of his boxes (and all its other, European, S(s)urrealist stuff) is something to behold indeed. There's something really tender about his art--not fragile exactly, but one gets a sense (or at least I get a sense) of vulnerability and openness while looking at his art, whether it's a box or a found footage film. As you say, I think a lot of it is because of his rearrangement of the familiar--but he does it so lovingly, so (to rephrase the sentiment of yours) defamiliarization is only one part of the process; the other part is an intensification of the pieces' beauty and mystery.
Women filmmaker blog-a-thon: I'd be tempted to write on Elaine May, myself. But not for certain.
Hey, I love reading about Akerman as much as I like insinuating myself into conversations about her, so it'd be great to have someone else evangelize about her.
I must admit, I'm a bit ambivalent about a women filmmakers spotlight though, if only because I think it perpetuates a kind of ghetto-izing of the role of women in the history of cinema. I guess I just don't compartmentalize art in terms of sexes.
Thanks, Zach. I've never been to the Art Institute of Chicago and would love to go. There's a wonderful, relatively recent book on Cornell co-edited by Lynda Roscoe Hartigan (it comes with a Voyager Foundation DVD-ROM) that has me itching to see his boxes "in person."
Acquarello, you make an excellent point. I agree I'm a bit ambivalent too. I think for me personally, the reasons that would justify it might be the following:
(1) I see cinema made by women as artifacts made by an Other (just like e.g. African cinema or Queer cinema might be for me also). I am eager to work harder to help these voices be heard, because historically we've suppressed these voices. So this, to me, is a worthy cause. It's ironic that after all the great "supposed" strides made by women in the last 30 years in our society, a fantastically high % (surely > 90%, I'd guess) of narrative features are man-made.
(2) You mentioned: "I guess I just don't compartmentalize art in terms of sexes."
I guess I'd say this: the cinema of Denis or Akerman, for example, could not have been made by a man; in many ways, it is different from man-made cinema. And I think I'd like to (as a critical endeavor) struggle to identify some ways how this might be so. What exactly does it mean for a work to have a "female consciousness"? This question interests me.
The (hopefully) positive thrust of these impulses trumps, for me, the (negative) perpetuation of ghettoization inherent in this project.
I agree with acquarello's "ghetto-izing" comment (plus, as the scope of these blog-a-thons gets bigger and bigger, a part of me wonders if there will ever be a movement back to a single-film blog-a-thon like Showgirls; I suppose the answer is, as soon as someone proposes the right film to capture folks' imaginations).
But I would hardly be able to resist participating in a woman filmmaker blog-a-thon were it to happen. My first instinct is to say that I'd write on Lotte Reiniger. But I'm equally likely to pick someone who dovetails with a timely retrospective or other screening in my area. There's almost always a film by a woman screening somewhere in town, most often a recent documentary or avant-garde work.
I agree with Girish's points above; and I think An Angel at My Table is definitely a movie with a female consciousness that couldn't have been made convincingly by a man. Fortunately I don't think it was made just convincingly, but also brilliantly.
Hey, Brian.
I'd be lying if I said if I wasn't a wee bit nervous about the single-film blog-a-thon--it might have greater potential for unavoidable redundancies in insights. But then again, this was for some reason more true with Code Unknown than Showgirls (just my perception). So, as you say, all it would take is the right film to come along. Showgirls was, in its way, sui generis: you could run a hundred ways with it; you can't do that, I suspect, with any and every film...
Tuwa, I haven't seen the Campion in fifteen years but I remember liking it a lot. She's a director I'd like to investigate more; what little I've seen by her is prickly and problematic (and I mean that in a productive and positive way).
Girish writes: "the cinema of Denis or Akerman, for example, could not have been made by a man"
But the films of Denis and Akerman could not have been made by anyone other than Denis and Akerman.
I love the way Akerman's short feature The Man with the Suitcase speaks to me deeply as a writer, not as a man watching a film made by a woman, despite its very real feminist sub-text and despite the way the writer's life aspect of the film dovetails with the woman's life aspect in profound ways. I ask myself, would a non-writer have made such a film? Let's hear it for the seldom-heard writers' perspective.
The comments about films being nominally "man-made" remind me of an story retold by Jonathan Rosenbaum (who was making an argument about auteurism):
"Let me illustrate with a favorite anecdote of mine, recounted by gossip columnist James Bacon about the shooting of CLASH BY NIGHT. Marilyn Monroe has a simple line at the end of a very complicated take involving other actors, camera movement, etc., and every time she blows it--maybe as many as a dozen times, until, she finally gets it right and Fritz Lang calls it a wrap. Then afterwards, in her dressing room, she confesses to Bacon, 'I was just waiting until I liked the way the rest of the shot was going.'
"Test question: Who was the auteur of that particular shot, Marilyn Monroe or Fritz Lang? Maybe both were, but at the very least, you have to admit she had final cut."
Anecdote number two: Jean Rouch, someone I'm endlessly fascinated by, was once reproached by none other than Ousmane Sembène who declared that Rouch shot Africans as if they were insects -- gracelessly throwing Rouch's own words back at him -- and declared that Africa should be documented by Africans. On that last point, Rouch, a white Frenchman, would have agreed, just not exclusively; although he worked to put cameras into the hands of Africans, he was loathe to give up his own. Rouch was such a thoughtful, careful, respectful filmmaker that I always bristle at Sembène's "insects" comment.
The only time I saw Sembène in person was at a chaotic Q&A in Toronto a couple of years ago when I very much wanted to ask him if his new drama about female genital mutilation should perhaps have been made by a woman, but this was some four decades after his comments to Rouch, and I wouldn't have been able to imply something like that with any conviction.
My point? Ah, I'm too lazy to have one of those. Besides, I don't think wallflowers like me get to vote on the next blog-o-thon. (But thank you all for writing the entries!)
Hey, Rob. Always a pleasure to see you.
"Besides, I don't think wallflowers like me get to vote on the next blog-o-thon."
Rob, I consider you a close friend, not a wallflower; I've always valued what you think, and so anything you say is automatically important to me!
Let me respond thusly:
--I never said or implied that films about women should only be made by women.
--Instead, I'd like to think that films made by a woman are somehow (consciously or unconsciously) marked by the fact that the maker is a woman. I'm interested in these markings, even if I'm not at all sure I'll recognize them when I see them. (But surely, there is some reason why women are something Other than men? I'm interested in these differences.)
--Is creating a category called "Films By Women Filmmakers" any more ghettoizing than say creating a category called "African cinema" or "Iranian cinema," something we do all the time?
--And I'm too much of an auteurist to let that anecdote go sliding by without addressing it!:
It is a great misunderstanding about auteurism that the auteur is claimed to be the one and only instrument of creative control operating over a work.
Instead, auteurism is a choice, a taste, on the part of a viewer, to choose to follow marks or trails of a director through a body of work even if that work was created in a process of collaboration among many individuals. So, when I watch Clash By Night, I do not at all deny the influence that Marilyn (or many unnamed others) had on the way the film turned out; what I choose to do is say: I'm especially interested in all the different ways this film appears to be a Fritz Lang film.
This, in my understanding, is what auteurism is about.
Rob, I love it when you come by here. I know you have a thousand-fold-higher readership through Paste than you would if you were confined to the blogosphere (as most of us here are) but that doesn't stop me from wishing I'd see and hear more of you.
I say this with a lot of love . . . Maybe we could explore the feminine in cinema without such a literal blog-a-thon topic? I think that the women filmmakers identity thing is sooooooo 1978!
This is the blogosphere, let's do something new!
xoxo!