(2/8/01)
It is quite an experience to sit through this 8mm film blown up to 16mm. It is like watching something secret and hidden brought up to the light. It doesn't suffer; it looks pretty good in the larger format. A lot of it seems very dark and I wondered if that was due to being blown up, but there are other shots which look fine so I doubt that the enlargement was the reason.
This film has a very dense structure--or a very dense texture. It is not accessible. This is the third time that I have seen it (twice in 16mm; once in 8mm) and from seeing it and reading about it in R. Bruce Elder's book on Brakhage I am just beginning to really see some of it and to understand what it means. For example, I caught one image of a scene of war in a work of art--maybe a piece of erotic pottery--and understood that Brakhage is talking about the artist bearing some responsibility for war by celebrating it in art. (I didn't see the Lichtenstein painting of a gun which was supposed to be pointed at Brakhage's head.)
I recognized the poet Louis Zukofsky--but only because I had been told that he was there. In a sense this film has a home movie quality to it in that there are things you have to know to fully appreciate and experience it which are not identified to what you could call outsiders. Like a home movie it can only be really experienced by insiders.
The film is about war--specifically, how images of the Vietnam war made their way into Brakhage's world. So the film begins with very swift pans around his Colorado environment and then the film gives us images of war culled from old films. The image of Adolph Hitler was especially noticeable. This old footage--and the first thing you think of is newsreel footage--just seems to go on forever. I do understand that it is Brakhage's personal anguish when he writes, "Take back Beethoven's ninth, then, he said." Personally, I think it is too much to expect from art to lift mankind to a state where war no longer happens.
The second part of the film is about Europe, mainly Vienna. I have never been able to understand what this has to do with the first part. I just can't make the connection. Filmmaker Peter Kubelka is to be seen in this part, but, like Louis Zukofsky, I only know that because I read it. It is another home-movie element.
The images of Kubelka and Zukofsky don't mean very much to me, probably because I never knew them personally. If they had actually been part of my life in a personal sense--instead of knowing them through their work--their images in this film might have meant more to me.
The film ends with a Coda in which children play with sparklers. This couold refer to the roots of aggression in childhood, but I don't see the sparklers as aggressive or warlike. I think the children are attracted to them simply because of their visual appeal.
Brakhage's 23rd Psalm Branch is a very personal film that had a lot of meaning for Brakhage and seems to have a lot for those who are able to really see it and connect with it. I have not been able to accomplish this feat, but I feel that I have seen a little more than I did last time. Is it worth the effort that this requires? I can't say, but the film's reputation motivates me to continue the attempt.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment