ponedjeljak, 3. kolovoza 2015.

Peter Milton - Hidden Cities, Nijinsky Variations

Peter_Milton_20




Arhitektura svijesti.


http://www.petermilton.com/catalog_view.asp


Peter Milton is a major force in the printmaking world. Using etching and engraving techniques, Milton often spends a year or more to create his large and complex images. At Yale University under Josef Albers, Milton developed a concern less for the surface appearance of objects, but rather for the explication of their underlying, substantive qualities. Milton conveys meaning through a contextual environment of people, places, and moments in time.
Milton’s imagery frequently draws on elements from the late 19th and early 20th century English and French literary world. Rendering such imagery in a rich tonal scale of black and whites, Milton manages not only capture the mood of another era but also mid-century cinema. He cites among his major influences Ingmar Bergman and Fellini. With time and reflection, a narrative in Milton’s densely symbolic and historically referential images unfolds. Milton has received numerous awards for his prints, has a published book titled Peter Milton: Complete Prints 1960-1996, and is in every major museum collection.  - Roxana Wax
Gardens in Rhythm




petak, 24. srpnja 2015.

Prismatic Music - The Super 8 Films of Joseph Bernard



Brakhage + apstraktni ekspresionizam = bubanj novog filmskog horizonta.

vimeo.com/user19099155/videos
www.josephbernard.com/films
www.geodesic.tv/prismatic-music/


VARIANT CHANTS (1983) from Joseph Bernard on Vimeo.


In the decade spanning 1975 to 1985, visual artist Joseph Bernard completed more than 100 films in Super 8mm. Frustrated by a lack of funds, materials, and attention, he withdrew from filmmaking and, ultimately, public art production entirely, though he remained on the faculty at Detroit’s College for Creative Studies, retiring in 2007 as Professor Emeritus. American experimental cinema is considerably poorer for both the brevity and obscurity of his career. Happily, the latter of these issues might now be rectified thanks to the Blu-ray release of Prismatic Music, a collection of 40 of Bernard’s films.
*
Eight years ago, B. Kite wrote in these pages of the rediscovery of Jacques Rivette’s cinema as “a submerged continent [rising] suddenly to the surface”; Bernard’s work may not comprise a continent—its concerns are too small or too large: an archipelago or a constellation— but its re-emergence is surely “a hell of a thing.”
*
Joseph Bernard first heard Stan Brakhage’s name the first time he saw his work: in 1969, while visiting Cummington Community of the Arts as an undergraduate on a work-study grant, he was shown Mothlight (1963) by the painter and filmmaker Abbott Meader. He asked to the see the film a second time, and then a third. By the following year, he was studying with Brakhage—as well as the painter Ray Yoshida and photographer Ken Josephson, both significant influences—in the MFA program at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.
*
The chief invention of Brakhage’s cameraless films, of which Mothlight is rightfully the most widely known, is the dialectical procedure by which the negation of the frame at an early stage heightens its power tremendously at a later one. That is, by removing it from the moment of production—painting or collaging directly onto film without regard for frame lines—Brakhage creates films in which the frame becomes the dominant formal element. It imposes itself on a flow of material, organizing it for projection at 18 or 24 frames per second. Rather than replicating some rhythm from the world, the film expresses its own. This rhythmic organization is subjectivity, the point from which Brakhage departs on his didactic project to free the visual from the deadening form of language (e.g., you will finally see all the shades that you really see in a field of grass). Recent history has provided ample evidence of the failure of this grand project, at least in its utopian aspect: leaving aside the considerable number of Brakhage’s formal developments that have been fully assimilated into contemporary corporate visual language, there is the trouble that these films can never quite be cured of the language infecting them. Still, among American directors, only Griffith, Chaplin, Cassavetes, Frampton, and Markopoulos have done more to expand the formal possibilities available to cinema.
*
Bernard’s films work by taking this pumped-up sense of the frame and returning it to the production process: single-frame and short-frame (i.e., bursts of two-to-six frames which allow movement into the image while still maintaining single-frame photography’s visual “pop”) photography is then subjected to meticulous editing. The result is a frame as forcefully present as that of Mothlight or any of the hand-painted films, but which is overdetermined in such a way that it becomes something other than a form of subjectivity; rather than rhythmic organization, Bernard achieves polyrhythmic freedom.
*
The history of poetry is 40 times as long as that of cinema; the history of painting, nearly 200. Does this explain filmmakers’ relative absence of anxiety over their influences? With so young an art, it remains easy to pick and choose from previous forms and sensibilities, whether from within cinema or without (the benefit of the movies’ status as the “plus one” of the arts, that which extends at once from all of the aesthetic work that has come before it). Bernard betrays no anxiety over Brakhage’s importance to his thinking with cinema; it is a light and wonderful thing to encounter such a confident, generous student.
*
Cinema is a form of impressionism—it was, after all, born at the moment when this style in painting was reaching its greatest heights, and thanks to Bazin, the two seem unlikely to ever be fully separated. Its impression is automatic: the machine, lacking the painter’s memory, must work with absolute speed. But then can there truly be a cinematic expressionism? The Germans and perhaps a few high colourists of the late Hollywood era have come closest, but the distance between even these works and those of the expressionists in painting, particularly the abstract expressionists, is considerable for the simple fact of the dramatic narrative, the world-building which demands that all effects be traced clearly to a psychological root. Bernard’s films have no concern for psychology and so are able to achieve something like a cinematic all-over effect.
*
In her appreciation of Variant Chants (1983) written for the small catalogue that accompanies Prismatic Music, filmmaker Monica Saviron invokes the abstract expressionists Joan Mitchell (“emotional charge of…brushstrokes”) and Jackson Pollock (“chaotic pouring of accumulated textures”), as well as their contemporaries in poetry, particularly Frank O’Hara and his “percussive associations.” Despite working from the relative seclusion of Detroit, Bernard may in fact be the filmmaker who has carried the various styles of the New York School the furthest in cinema.
*
If the form of Bernard’s films derives most clearly from the films of Brakhage and the painting of the abstract expressionists, his sensibility is closest to another of the New York poets, James Schuyler, who wrote of: “A nothing day full of/wild beauty.”
Chamber
Chamber
Like Schuyler, Bernard is an extraordinary colourist of the everyday, one capable of maintaining a visual balance not only within the frame, but across the whole of the film. Each film has a dominant colour—the curtain-filtered white light of Chamber’s (1977) domestic spaces; the tart cherry of Ritual’s (1979) macro abstractions; the twilight blue that keeps Night Mix (1982) attached to the day. These dominant colours are accented by Bernard’s extensive manipulations, through painting, inking, bleaching, scratching, etc., which bring in his “violent green,” his “bright particular.” (In certain cases, such as Night Mix, the manipulation itself provides the dominant colour and the photography fills out the palette).
*
The clearest example of Bernard’s structuring use of colour comes in Eye Reels (1980), which works in the negative space left behind by the pooling of red in the cardinal dresses of an Irish dance performance. Schuyler once wrote of the “blue-occluded white” in Paul Burlin’s Square White. In Eye Reels, Bernard renders a red-occluded world full of pleasant natural hues—white, green, brown—striving for the excitement that only lives in red.
*
Eye Reels is notable as well as the only of Bernard’s films to make significant use of found footage: it opens with rickety images of a nuclear explosion and what appears to be a civil rights event. The avoidance of found material is somewhat surprising given the collage nature of his films (and the actual collages he made across his career, many of which figure in his films), but the truth is that he prefers the sensibility that attaches to found objects to the objects themselves.
*
This sensibility—Bernard’s sensibility as a photographer—is one of excited disinterest. At any time, he could just as well be filming something else, but he’s not, he’s filming this. Such a sensibility depends on the belief that anything might be found beautiful if looked at properly. It is not a case of degrading the beautiful by passively finding it everywhere one looks, but rather an active engagement with the notion of natural beauty itself, an engagement that depends on Bernard’s intricate montage to reach its full expression: he is not interested in simply presenting semblances, he is after the harmonious relations that make up the perfect beauty of the whole of the world. A nervous zoom out from a man walking across an empty lot may not be beautiful in itself, but placed as it is in Ritual—as the moment in which the tight focus of tabletop filmmaking finally opens onto the world—it gains a humble splendour.
*
So then the beauty of Bernard’s films resides in their rhythms, and their rhythms are mercifully left free of any obligation to sound, as all of his work is silent. At a time when experimental film programs around the world are drowning in soundtracks which exist solely to avoid the weight of silence, Prismatic Music offers a desperately necessary corrective: editing done with real rhythmic sensitivity and invention has no need for the pleasing sonic illusion of synchronicity.
*
As with Jonas Mekas’ films, Bernard’s are a type of silent diary. In both cases, there is the question of what knowledge a silent diary can provide. Against the “I did this, I did that” quality of Mekas’ work—work which is, at its best, terribly moving for his sensitivity to the glancing moments when a face finally gives up its secrets—Bernard is only secondarily concerned with a documentary aspect, with the possibility that in the future a viewer will know that this thing happened. Where Mekas builds up documentary moments while patiently waiting for the moment for an artistic gesture, Bernard views art as continuous with the world: to reiterate, the nothing days of daily life are quite simply the stuff of art if one is willing to work out the fragile, subtle relations running through everything. His are films that enact the critical position of rejecting any possibility of detachable content.
*
The documentary aspect of Bernard’s films is at its least disinterested in his portrait films, which include both people—his mother (A.B. Portraits, 1978), or his daughter (JSB at 9 [1978], a somewhat queasy essay on the trouble of the male gaze as directed at one’s own child)—and places, ranging in scale from the town (Provincetown Pieces, 1979) to the home (620 Commercial, 1980). His attention remains as quick as ever, but these are the rare instances where the answer to the question, “What is it about?” is made immediately available.
Provincetown Pieces
Provincetown Pieces
Human figures nonetheless appear in nearly all of Bernard’s films. Their aspect is generally that of home movie: because these are often his friends and family, they are able to act “naturally” in the presence of his camera, acknowledging it as an extension of Bernard himself. Again, the effect is closer to the friendly hangouts that fill Mekas’ rolls than the posed figures one finds in the films of Brakhage, or the underground lounging in the films of Ken Jacobs, Jack Smith, or the Kuchars.
*
Bernard’s final film, Her Moves (1985), signals a significant shift away from all of the films that preceded it. Here, at last, there is performance: a dozen women each perform a single task for the camera—walking a dog, playing a cello, serving a tennis ball, dancing ballet, and, perhaps in the most mysterious instance, appearing in a film. There is the sense of Muybridge in reverse; having spent a decade de- and recomposing the world to bring forth its relations with maximum clarity, Bernard now turns his attention to motion as such, allowing illusionist movement back into the image while retaining an all-over rhythmic quality. It is his strangest, his most overtly political, and his most conventional film.
*
Another figure demands consideration: that of Joseph Bernard himself. The pleasures of incidental self-portraiture have long sustained the American avant-garde, and Bernard, with the flowing hair and broad chest of an All-American quarterback, appears across his films. He is almost always shown at work, either filming his own reflection, or seated at the editing bench. Experimental filmmakers today seem content to stay behind the camera, signalling the reflexive fact of living their films via symbolic means, if at all. The sensibility that leads to more direct cinematic self-portraiture, such as that of Anne Charlotte Robertson, or, again, Mekas, seems to have migrated comfortably to the digital spaces of Instagram and YouTube.
*
Bernard’s cinematic breakthrough, Chamber, opens on an image of the camera in front of a window reflected in a detail from Bernard’s combine of the same name, which ultimately serves as something like Stevens’ jar, an object of such plain gravity that it is capable of drawing anything and everything into its domain, until the space of the film—the Bernard family home, with its knickknacks, photos (Maya Deren haunts the film via a still from Meshes of the Afternoon [1943]), X-rays, dogs, snowy yards, light fixtures, children, bedrooms, etc.—seems to live inside this art object.
*
Rosalind Krauss, “Grids,” October, Vol. 9: “In the spatial sense, the grid states the autonomy of the realm of art. Flattened, geometricized, ordered, it is antinatural, antimimetic, antireal. It is what art looks like when it turns its back on nature.”
*
Bernard takes up what Krauss sees as the modernist deployment of the window at the hands of the symbolists—“the window is experienced as simultaneously transparent and opaque”—but torques its use to become not a marker of the distance between art and reality, but a formal corollary in the world for the modernist mechanics of his art.
*
As evidenced by the key image from Chamber, Bernard fully understands the window in its opaque dimension, i.e., the window as mirror. At times, he introduces actual mirrors, sometimes using them to split the frame in two, creating a 360-degree vantage on the flat plane of the image. At others, he films windows themselves opaquely, whether through the use of lighting or perspective. In either case, the autonomy of art that the grid introduces is worked over until it dissolves into a natural harmony; the aesthetic effects of the grid remain in place, but art, in its autonomy, has turned to once again face nature square on.
*
The grid occurs throughout Bernard’s films in literal forms as well, most commonly as the backing on his typewritten titles and signature, which serve as effectively as a précis for his sensibility as Brakhage’s hand-scribbled “by brakhage” or Frampton’s HF logo, with its conflation of language and image.
*
In addition to windows/mirrors and grids, the third of Bernard’s pet objects is the geometric device: the ruler, compass, or protractor. These objects appear repeatedly in his tabletop films, and are the only symbols which occur in his work, though they also serve a rhythmic purpose, allowing for a pleasing play between curves and lines (Ritual, Film for Untitled Viewer [1983], Variant Chants).
*
Krauss cites Mallarmé’s comment that the window is the “sign by which he could…project the ‘crystallization of reality into art.’” For Bernard, the geometric device signals the potential for art: to measure difference within the whole that is nature.
*
His tool for doing so, as I have said, is free rhythm and its ability to draw out new cinematic relations. Bernard’s films do not function on the principle that each image must relate to the one which came before or after it; instead, in their rapid appearance and disappearance, they leave both mental and perceptive afterimages, images which work against cinema’s logic of linear accumulation in order to build webs of relations in which each point (image) contains infinite potential.
*
Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 1: “The mental image had not to be content with weaving a set of relations, but had to form a new substance.”
*
Bernard achieves something like the creation of this new cinematic substance in Variant Chants, the most baroque of his tabletop films, which he describes as an “in-total dervish dance.” Brimming with strange images—pictures from sea adventure magazines are trapped behind gridded rulers; light shifts through and around plastic objects filmed in extreme close-up; images of nature are shot through a prismatic lens, diffracting objects out into rainbow-frayed edges—and the most intricate painting and inking of any of his films, it is impossible to speak of Variant Chants as a film of anything. In it, Bernard has found a film form capable of capturing the world at full complexity; it simply is, indivisibly so.
Variant Chants
Variant Chants
The complement to the sprawl of Variant Chants is found in the compact Ritual, a dark, cultic work where the aforementioned cherry red shines out of darkness at times illuminated from the other direction as well (the ritual might be that of Orpheus, or Dante). Here Bernard makes significant use of his fourth visual trope: letters filmed in close-up, rendering them purely graphic—the curves of letters appear as if radiant, casting off an orange glow echoed by the embers of a fire which appears late in this brief film.
*
Bernard’s third masterpiece, Film for Untitled Viewer, tests the rhythmic and graphic capacities of the written word. Addressed to a viewer who is at once eidolon and everyman, it submits language (and the grid, on which the typed word of its lyric appear) to a series of rapid edits; in the presence of immediately “legible” images, one feels the speed of Bernard’s montage even more. To see Film for Untitled Viewer is to become absolutely aware of just how deeply in the dark one remains as a viewer: the film ends with a single word, “US,” but it remains impossible to know with certainty whether you are part of this us. In either case, it’s one of the only films I know that treats its audience as fully heterogeneous.
*
Film for Untitled Viewer makes apparent the nuance at the core of all of Bernard’s films: in a linguistic society, there’s no returning to Eden, so language—both as language and as the indexical image, with its obvious linguistic dimension (e.g., is that a picture of a nose or a face?)—must be allowed in and then stretched and compacted to see ways in which we might see around and through it.
*
Hollis Frampton, “A Pentagram for Conjuring the Narrative” (1972): “At this writing, narrative appears to be axiomatically inevitable.” The concern here is not with story or, more deeply, with the successful arrangement of dramatic material, but with the presence in real time of “a rational narrative, such that every term in the series, together with its positions, duration, partition, and reference, shall be perfectly and entirely accounted for.” (Frampton refers to this as Brakhage’s Theorem.)
*
If narrative is inevitable—and I am inclined to agree that, at the time of this writing, it remains so—then where does it exist in relation to a film? Bernard’s films are in a sense études for memory, exercises aimed at helping us to better understand how and why we take in and remember this image and not that one. The new substance which they give to a set of relations exists only for the duration of their projection; afterward, I find myself constantly left with the sense of a whole that is impossible to describe—that is, every image is granted the full freedom of its full difference, a process which is rare and strange to encounter in action.
*
Bernard’s films point to nothing less than a new horizon for film. By accepting the difference-potential in each cinema image, we are now free to throw off the shackles that have bound cinema since more or less the beginning, and certainly since the advent of sound; I mean, of course, the homogenizing force of 24 frames per second. We can now imagine a film of absolute difference even at this most basic level, darting between frame rates in both photography and projection, finally and fully exploring the rhythmic, relational possibilities available to motion pictures.
*
From Gertrude Stein’s Tender Buttons:
A Carafe, that is a Blind Glass
A kind in glass and a cousin, a spectacle and nothing strange a single hurt color and an arrangement in a system to pointing. All this and not ordinary, not unordered in not resembling. The difference is spreading. - Phil Coldiron


Blog_image_reduced

Viewing the work of Joseph Bernard for the first time it is tempting to contemplate providing one’s own soundtrack as a way to complement or even complete the experience, but it is a temptation that must be resisted if one is to open oneself to the possibility of understanding the filmmaker’s intentions. No doubt it is unusual and therefore off-putting to experience film without sound; the two are uniquely and fortuitously wedded to each other in a bond both inviolable and permanent, the one increasing and reinforcing the agency and potency of the other. In contemporary mainstream cinema—in fact in nearly all cinema since the introduction of talkies—score and sound design is largely depended upon to do much of the emotional heavy lifting. Its significance is such that film composers themselves are household names and their contributions regularly enjoy currency as standalone musical compositions.

It is strange and disorienting then, to embark upon a Bernard viewing regimen where one’s first reaction is typically one of unease upon discovering their muteness. Without sound as the usual gloss and propulsion, the films at once seem alien and difficult. But Bernard’s work is clearly musical in nature, and without the imposition of sound one can more readily recognize in these films their rhythm and repetition, their measures and movements; musical hallmarks through which one can more easily enter into and be absorbed by Bernard’s fragmentary and frantic dream world, whose near constant stream of visual stimuli often rolls by so quickly and so forcefully that one is unable to take it in in any conscious sense. In the strobe-like sequencing of abstract shapes and patterns, textures and reflections, one simply cannot keep up; inexorably the conscious gives way to the subliminal. 



Bernard’s overwhelming visual vocabulary, his uneasy juxtaposition of extraordinarily beautiful abstract imagery with alternately gritty urban or seemingly banal domestic "home movie" ephemera, his staunch refusal to allow the viewer the satisfaction of lingering over images, his firm allegiance to the restless delirium of the kinetic and the chaotic and the transitory, his exuberant world of double exposure and super-imposition and light-box imagery, his painstakingly rendered painterly devices that are ever dissolving and ever momentary: all manifest the notion that art is the making conscious of the unconscious, the poet dreaming reality.

Engulfed in silence we are propelled more forcefully into a hallucinatory dream state between Dionysian ecstasy and civilization’s madness. The doors of perception open to obscure yet naggingly persistent themes with uncertain import (life, sex, death?) ultimately comprising the search for meaning that is humanity’s curse and birthright and enduring project. Deftly wielding all of the tools and techniques at his disposal—indistinct and out of focus images, shadows, extreme close-ups, treated film stock, negatives, X-rays, photographs—Bernard is ever alive to possibility of his medium, and ever faithful to its liberating power. His thorough exploitation of film as a fundamentally transparent medium represents an exegesis of the art and craft of filmmaking in all of its forms and manifestations. With power and precision he creates an intense, euphoric, immersive experience that catalogs and distills the entire history of twentieth-century art.

This is an edited excerpt from the DVD notes of the recently released Prismatic Music - The Super 8 Films of Joseph Bernard. Some of his films are available to view here.  - John Bertram

Re_prismaticmusiccover


Melons_galore_prmix_0_4_copy


subota, 9. svibnja 2015.

'Finnegans Wake' collaboratively set to music, unabridged

Picture


Sve može biti nerazumljivo na više od jednog načina.


download via archive.org
www.waywordsandmeansigns.com/



The idea was a simple enough question. How many ways are there to read James Joyce's great and bizarre novel Finnegans Wake
Seventeen different musicians from all around the world, each assigned to render a chapter aurally. The only requirements: the chapter's words must be audible, unabridged, and more or less in their original order.
This is a labor of love, not profit. We have created this to be shared, so please tell your colleagues, students and friends.
To the wonderful world of Finnegans Wake readers, newcomers and devoted followers alike: Here Comes Everybody
A note from project director Derek Pyle: "It has been an absolute joy producing Waywords and Meansigns. Thank you to everyone who has supported us, and a special thanks to all the contributors. You have poured your hearts into this work, not to mention nearly breaking your backs, and it really shows."
Waywords and Meansigns would not be possible without the support of many people. Thanks to the fwread listserv, especially Peter Quadrino, Peter Chrisp, Roman Tsivkin, as well as Adam Harvey and Mariana Lanari; your collective knowledge of Joyce is astounding. Marie Broadway, Jake Tozer, Sam Nordli, and Emma Pampanin co-hosted the Finnegans Wake parties that inspired this project. Zach Leavitt and Chelsea Westra co-hosted the parties of the future. Elaine Thomas, Dylan Muhlberg, the Amherst Irish Association, Jacqui Wise, Krzysztof Bartnicki, Mike Moran, Mike Medeiros, Jason Gross, Rebecca Hanssens-Reed, Billy Mills, and the James Joyce Gazette played pivotal roles spreading the word about this project, through press coverage and otherwise. Thanks to Mackenzie Libbey, and Michael Robbins, for their support throughout. Thanks to L. Brown Kennedy and Annie G. Rogers for first introducing me to Joyce. Special thanks to Mark Traynor and the James Joyce Centre in Dublin, and to Robert Berry.
Infinite thanks to the project contributors, and all who channel the spirit of James Joyce.

Action Figures - Action Figures (2015)



Digitalni virus koji napada analogne VHS-vrpce i pretvara ih u nostalgične, meditativne noćne more.


bootlegtapes.bandcamp.com/album/action-figures

http://media.tinymixtapes.com/




“We are in open circuits.”– Nam June Paik
The absence of most Mary Shelly’s literary themes in 1931’s Frankenstein is what created a monster that is classically recognizable today. In 1990, RoboCop 2 got strip-searched and hot-wired to juxtapose his immediate — and previously 100% — good-nature. When Dark Side of the Rainbow hit psyches in 1973, The Wizard of Oz was changed forever. That week, when AceMo and Dali Vision were snowed into their apartment with a stack of VHS tapes, they hooked up an SP-404 and a pedal board to a VCR, and began a collaborative project called Action Figures, which I assumed stopped them from killing each other.
Action Figures, given the context and origin of their sound, holds traces of gestures of digi-spatial violence, cybernetics at work on the body. There’s an inferred feedback loop, an activated figure breaching, transmuting and giving life to a figurative action of extensive exostosis.– DeForrest Brown Jr.
Throughout that bunker of a week, Action Figures took live samples from these movies, used contrasting film-genres while pairing sounds, and mixed them with a 4-track recorder — as one would solve a puzzle. This process infuses their modality of translating art by way of skill, participation, and patience. This is Action Figures’ exterior, at their most basic. Without reading into their music-making process, Action Figures would remain a primitive piece of original work, presenting itself to listeners as if it were another noise or abstract ambient album, invoking a charm of evil, spiritually. Yet, the music is not as adrift in idea, as the conceptual aspect of the release is something more like reading this whole review in Blade Runner font. The three important conceptual aspects of Action Figures I’d like to touch on directly and/or metaphorically are: comedic timing, entrapment, and detachment.



“People buy the cookie-dough roll and slice it, and then they lay it on a cookie sheet. That’s not making chocolate-chip cookies.”– Amy Sedaris
Since AceMo and Dali Vision are graduates of studio production (both coming from a childhood of listening to jazz, both jazz musicians), they have a good sense of improvisation. On Action Figures, the two build up and work around the use of comedic timing to favor and pair specific sounds in order to trip-up listeners. This “trip-up” is common to genres like EDM, beat music, and the avant-garde, but generally this trick’s intent is to snap listeners back into the music, after having put them through something repetitious or intentionally drawl. I consider this to be the definition of sonic psychedelia: less drastic than a heavy hit of DMT and more like something so unexpected that humor overwhelms the audience’s sense of listening and are struck with immediate euphoria.
The euphoria developed throughout Action Figures’ debut is attributed to the faux-psychosis it festers within listeners using maximized layers of samples. It’s like the way heat effects people by way of wanting to go out, but then ice cream sales and murders go up. Or being given directions by someone using a language you’re unfamiliar with followed by your crazy “I’m fucked!” laugh. By balancing the humor between overabundance and psychedelia, Action Figures atones for flagrant thematic direction through their focus on how their music shifts itself, drawing listeners’ attention to the construction of their album.
“Nostalgia is a dysfunction of the historical impulse, or a corruption of the historical impulse.”– William Gibson
As Action Figures coerce listeners to hear the construction of their album via sound-play, they also entrap audience-ears through the materialization of immediate conflict and nostalgia. Considering Action Figures was created during a block of time when both AceMo and Dali Vision were stuck inside an apartment, the intention of using sounds from familiar-but-juxtaposing movies ensnares listeners’ curiosity. Many can just immediately input, “Wait, was that The Exorcist or a piano?” Yet, it was probably neither, because it was actually RoboCop exiting his Ford Taurus through a smattering of effects. Action Figures’ game of memory relies upon their sounds to instigate casual listener examination between recognizable snippets and blown-slowed sounds.

You’ve got to get out of your mind / It’ll never get out of my mind.”– All The Things You Were
This curiosity teeters a tip that allows audience members to fall forth upon a quest of investigative thoughts. One thought could trigger those last few drags taken before leaving Gina at her job. It could be that unfamiliar cooking sound and not knowing what’ll be on the dinner table. What you think the first interview with a machine would sound like. Or mixing up The Last Boy Scout with Bullet Proof. Basically, Action Figures stems from a culture you’ve been sold on throughout your life, but it only garners their distinct sensibility as unique musicians by turning these sounds toward a territory that’s only marginally familiar — like picking up a book you haven’t read since the age of four, but only NOW you understand what it’s about.
“Interpretation is the revenge of the intellectual upon art.”– Susan Sontag
Action Figures is that face you were making as a child while thinking of how you’d look today. It’s like gluing toys together in the name of production and reappropriation. There’s a detachment element to what listeners hear in Action Figures akin to figuring out how every television show is a gimmick based on addiction and multimedia marketing. Or the feel when a white person does racist humor. Action Figures’ trajectory is intentionally non-immediate, but based around the immediacy of improvisational mixing and sound-clip sourcing. Just give this a try for detachment’s sake: listen to this entire album doing something, anything: writing, working, driving, tanning, eating, showering. Action Figures give their audiences two choices during the album’s duration: (1) ignore the sounds inhabiting your thoughts like a maniac thinks about a Saturday afternoon block of cartoons, or (2) accept what is being played, but ignore the feeling of lashing out into the air with fists, crying unintentionally, or laughing uncontrollably. Make the straightest face you can muster up. Action Figures just made nonmusic consumable.

-

ponedjeljak, 27. travnja 2015.

Alan Clarke - Penda's Fen (1974)

 penda4.jpg


Iskopavanje starog tv-filma sada je ono što je nekada bilo iskopavanje groba kralja Arthura. A i u filmu je riječ o iskopavanju istine, mitova, "čistoće"... itd. Grant Morrison ga je volio.




Written by David Rudkin and directed by Alan Clarke, Penda's Fen was first broadcast in 1974 as part of the BBC's Play for Today series. It tells the story of seventeen year-old Stephen, a middle-class pastor's son who has a bizarre series of encounters with angels, the composer Edward Elgar, and King Penda, the mythical last pagan ruler of England. These encounters - whether real or imagined - force Stephen to question his religious beliefs, his politics and his sexuality.
Central to Rudkin's drama is the timelessness of the countryside and its place in the construction of 'Englishness'. At the beginning of the play, Stephen has a solid if somewhat conservative sense of nationality defined through his Christianity, his belief in the sanctity of marriage, faith in the military, distrust of socialism and a love of the music of Elgar. His encounters, coupled with the discovery that his father's beliefs are far from orthodox and his realisation that England has a religion much older than Christianity, compel Stephen to re-evaluate not only his own values, but also his notion of what it means to be English.
Penda's Fen, with its discussions of Manichean philosophy, dream sequences and the appearance of mythical creatures, seems somehow out of place in Alan Clarke's output. Indeed Clarke himself, who was recruited to direct the play at the behest of Rudkin who saw him as one of the best TV directors in Britain at the time, claimed he never fully understand what the play was about. Nevertheless, the exploration of white English masculinity is a theme common to many of Clarke's dramas. Whilst Stephen is far removed from the aggressive, urban and often working-class (anti) heroes typical of Alan Clarke dramas, he shares their disenfranchisement and their desire to rebel against his surroundings. - Justin Hobday

This is a post I’d been intent on writing for the past four years but kept putting off: why go to great lengths to describe another television drama which people can’t see? And how do you easily appraise something which haunted you for twenty years and which remains a significant obsession? My hand has been forced at last by a forthcoming event (detailed below) so this at least has some fleeting relevance, but before getting to that let’s have some facts.
penda3.jpg
Penda’s Fen was a TV play first screened in March 1974 in the BBC’s Play For Today strand. It was shot entirely on film (many dramas in the 1970s recorded their interiors on video) and runs for about 90 minutes. The writer was David Rudkin and it was directed by Alan Clarke, a director regarded by many (myself included) as one of the great talents to emerge from British television during the 1960s and 70s. The film was commissioned by David Rose, a producer at the BBC’s Pebble Mill studios in Birmingham, as one of a number of regional dramas. Rudkin was, and still is, an acclaimed playwright and screenwriter whose work is marked by recurrent themes which would include the tensions between pagan spirituality and organized religion, and the emergence of unorthodox sexuality. Both these themes are present in Penda’s Fen, and although the sexuality aspect of his work is important—pioneering, even—he’s far from being a one-note proselytiser. Alan Clarke is renowned today for his later television work which included filmed plays such as Scum (banned by the BBC and re-filmed as a feature), Made in Britain (Tim Roth’s debut piece), The Firm (with Gary Oldman), and Elephant whose title and Steadicam technique were swiped by Gus Van Sant. Penda’s Fen was an early piece for Clarke after which his work became (in Rudkin’s words) “fierce and stark”.
The most ambitious of Alan Clarke’s early projects, Penda’s Fen at first seems a strange choice for him. Most scripts that attracted Clarke, no matter how non-naturalistic, had a gritty, urban feel with springy vernacular dialogue (and sometimes almost no dialogue). David Rudkin’s screenplay is different: rooted in a mystical rural English landscape, it is studded with long, self-consciously poetic speeches and dense with sexual/mythical visions and dreams, theological debate and radical polemic—as well as an analysis of Elgar’s The Dream of Gerontius. But though Penda’s Fen is stylistically the odd film out in Clarke’s work, it trumpets many of his favourite themes, in particular what it means to be English in the last quarter of the twentieth century.
Howard Schuman, Sight & Sound, September 1998
Spencer Banks is the principal actor in Penda’s Fen, playing Stephen Franklin, an 18-year-old in his final days at school. The BBC’s Radio Times magazine described the film briefly:
Young Stephen, in the last summer of his boyhood, has somehow awakened a buried force in the landscape around him. It is trying to communicate some warning, a peril he is in; some secret knowledge; some choice he must make, some mission for which he is marked down.
penda2.jpg
The magazine also interviewed Rudkin about the film:
“I think of Penda’s Fen as more a film for television than a TV play—not just because it was shot in real buildings on actual film but because of its visual force…
“It was conceived as a film and written visually. Some people think visual questions are none of the writer’s business—that he should provide the action and leave it to the director to picture it all out. For me, writing for the screen is a business of deciding not only what is to be shown but how it is to be seen…
Penda’s Fen is a very simple story; it tells of a boy, Stephen, who in the last summer of his boyhood has a series of encounters in the landscape near his home which alter his view of the world…

“The first idea for the film came to me from something that happened a couple of years ago. It almost grew out of a village or, rather, its name (I won’t say what the name was because I use it for a special reason in the film). My wife was coming home one day when she found the road to the village closed. There was a diversion sign—and the name of the village had been misspelt by one letter. But it didn’t look like a mistake, more as if the painter had a different pronunciation. I found that the name had been spelt and pronounced this way—but centuries ago. And this was a corruption of an older, 12th-century version, itself a corruption of the oldest name of all, dating from pre-Christian times. You could, if you like, be fanciful and say that the misspelling was the old, primeval ‘demon’ of the place opening half an eye…
“The village itself is nothing much to shout about. It’s typical for the area: Victorian redbrick cottages, council houses, not ‘rurally picturesque’…
“I began to think of ‘burials’—like the legend of King Arthur, not dead but merely sleeping underground to wake again on a trumpet blast in England’s hour of peril. But I was becoming interested in another king—only a century after Arthur. And, if this king’s name is not exactly a household word, that’s because he was on the losing side. But he is a historical reality—we have the dates of his reign, the battles he fought. He was the last pagan king in England; I was thinking of Penda of Mercia…
“The wars that Penda waged against his Christianised neighbours were not religious wars—in fact, Penda himself did not try to prevent his son and daughter from becoming Christians as part of the dynastic marriage pacts they made—he was fighting for the political survival of Mercia. Not many years after the battle in which he died, England was Christianised—yet the old, dark ‘demon’ of Penda’s England refuses to lie down…
“Another, more famous figure’s hidden historical reality is also unearthed in the film—Elgar. But it’s more than Elgar’s music that haunts Penda’s Fen: there’s something of his spirit, too…
“Some still think of Elgar as the archetypal country gentleman whose music enshrines the noblest sentiments of patriotism and faith. That way of looking at him is similar to Stephen’s outlook on the world at the beginning of the film Elgar was, in fact, a tradesman’s son who married above himself and was socially over-sensitive all his life…
“But I didn’t want to think merely of the past—I wanted to open a futuristic window on the landscape, too. So into the story is borne Arne, the embittered neighbour who offers Stephen a savage political outlook on tomorrow’s world…
“I also wanted wanted to show that as far as earthly life is concerned, death is an absolute parting and a farewell. The old Mr and Mrs Kings, living in their cottage and growing their neat vegetable garden also show the strength of those people who can accept this…
“So there it is. As Stephen crosses the beautiful, haunted landscape towards the distant hills, his false certainties are one by one, stripped away. And finally, he looks back across the landscape and sees it with a new, harder sight…
Rudkin’s play is essentially a psychodrama in which the character of Stephen is shocked out of his priggish, conservative attitudes by a succession of personal and spiritual revelations. His parents inform him on his 18th birthday that he was adopted; his dreams reveal a growing awareness of his homosexuality and he’s chastised at school by teachers and the other boys for not fitting in; he discovers that his apparently mundane Rector father has authored a study of the Bible which argues that the original Gospels were malevolently tampered with in order to distort the radical message of the historic Jesus. The Malvern countryside becomes a psychic battleground in which the agents of a “pure” Christianity (the Gospel tamperers, in other words) compete with the nation’s buried pagan ancestry for Stephen’s soul which we can read as representing the future of Britain. The wealth of symbolism is rich without ever being forced and it’s partly this which makes the film so remarkable. An example: Stephen’s name is almost certainly a reference to Saint Stephen who was martyred by being stoned to death (in one of Stephen’s dreams we see him being pelted with mud). Rudkin is a Classical scholar (he provided the commentary on Greek matters in Tom Phillips’ and Peter Greenaway’s A TV Dante), as is Stephen’s character, and both the schoolboy and the writer would know that “Stephen” is a derivation of the Greek “Stephanos”, meaning “crown”; Stephen’s character is eventually seen as the inheritor of a spiritual kingship. Like Lindsay Anderson’s If…., the film is anti-authoritarian in a distinctly English way, standing against the orthodoxies of a poisonous and poisoning State and Church, and against attempts to enforce “purity” and “normality”. It should be noted that Rudkin is never anti-Christian, he’s against the contemporary manifestations of a religion which has lost sight of its origins.
penda5.jpg
Stephen (Spencer Banks) discovers his father’s manuscript.
The layered symbolism and discussion of metaphysical crisis was extremely bewildering to this 12-year-old TV viewer who was somehow allowed to watch the whole of the film past his usual bedtime. Spencer Banks was very familiar from a children’s science fiction series, Timeslip (1970-72), in which Banks played a bespectacled, slightly geeky character with whom I—being bespectacled and slightly geeky—naturally identified. In Penda’s Fen he appears wearing a bomber jacket like one I wore at the time, so the overall impression was of watching an older avatar of myself undergoing a bizarre rite of passage. None of it made any sense at all and the sexual aspect was completely lost on me; what was impressive and somewhat traumatising was the atmosphere of dread which accumulated in a succession of powerful, supernatural and—in one startling incident—uniquely horrifying scenes. Alan Clarke gives the dreams his usual documentary veracity but you’ll have to forgive my refusal to discuss any of those scenes in detail, to do so would spoil the effect and resonance of individual moments; the film should be experienced as a whole. It was the dreams and hallucinatory moments which I remembered for years after but, to my endless frustration, not the play’s title. Throughout the rest of the 1970s and most of the 80s no one I knew had seen it and consequently those disturbing images developed an additional power and mystery as they entangled themselves with my own dreams and memories. In the late 1980s the magic words “Penda’s Fen” came to light when it turned out that comics writer Grant Morrison was a Rudkin enthusiast who had also been haunted by the film. Grant later told me that a friend of his had corresponded with Rudkin in the 1970s so he’d got to Rudkin’s other work a lot sooner, and Rudkin’s plays have been an influence on Grant’s own work for the stage. What most frustrates me now is that I distinctly remember an announcement after the film that Rudkin would be discussing the drama in a following program. Given the BBC’s negligent handling of its output there’s no guarantee that this studio discussion has survived.
penda1.jpg
Penda’s Fen might have remained as buried as its ancient king had it not been screened again on Channel 4 in 1989 as part of a retrospective season of dramas produced by David Rose. That gave me the chance to record it at last and I’ve been acting as a cheerleader for the film ever since. (I also carefully transferred my copy to DVD in 2003, worried that the tape might get damaged and I’d lose the thing again.) It’s likely that I’m partly responsible for its renewed cult reputation having alerted various friends in the music and publishing world to its existence. The film is increasingly cited in discussion of Britain’s heritage of folk and pagan culture, most recently by Rob Young in a piece for Sight & Sound. Perhaps inevitably, the film has been ushered into the charmed circle of revenant Ghost Box icons, and will be receiving a rare screening at the Belbury Youth Club event this coming Sunday, March 28th, along with other films and music which comprise the Flatpack Festival 2010. If you’re in the Birmingham area, the Flatpack events run throughout this coming week.
penda6.jpg
Rudkin’s play wasn’t a one-off, his other work is equally powerful, engaging and fascinating. A later film for the BBC, the wildly ambitious Artemis 81, is three hours in length (!) and explores similar themes, albeit in a less coherent fashion. It also includes Daniel Day-Lewis’s first screen appearance and has Sting playing Hywel Bennett’s angelic object of homoerotic desire. Rudkin’s stage work is fiercely imaginative, using Joycean dialogue to striking effect, and I’m continually surprised that no one seems interested in re-staging remarkable plays such as The Sons of Light. As for Penda’s Fen, whenever a TV executive tries to argue that television hasn’t dumbed down I’d offer this work as Exhibit A for the prosecution. Rudkin and Clarke’s film was screened at 9.35 in the evening on the nation’s main TV channel, BBC 1, at a time when there were only three channels to choose from. A primetime audience of many millions watched this visceral and unapologetically intelligent drama; show me where this happens today.
Finally, as with the Beardsley play, yes, I have my own copy but, no, I can’t copy it for you, so please don’t ask. Artemis 81 appeared on DVD in 2007 but a proposed release of Alan Clarke films from the BBC including Penda’s Fen has yet to emerge. A DVD set of Clarke’s later work appeared a few years ago but these were all the violent dramas which tends to skew perception of his career and make him appear as a kind of Stanley Kubrick with a Stanley knife. Given Clarke’s reputation and the growing cult status of Penda’s Fen it’s surely time to put this unique drama before a wide audience once again.
- John Coulthart www.johncoulthart.com/feuilleton/2010/03/22/pendas-fen-by-david-rudkin/

David Rudkin’s website


Contact:



Christine: