[Frameworks] Sleazeball attacks on avant-garde film

[Ronald Gregg]

Fred, thanks for these insights.  I pulled this up from a presentation that
I made many years ago: "Commenting on a screening of Markopoulos’ work at
NYU in *Films in Review*, film critic Henry Hart denounced the exposure of
Markopoulos’ work to NYU students and visitors. Hart saw “pleasing
vignettes” in the *Du sang, de la volupte et de la mort* trilogy, but was
clearly upset by a “few suggestions that abnormal perceptions and moods are
desirable.”  Hart also noted that Markopoulos had submitted articles for
publication to *Films in Review*, including one “on motion pictures that
dealt openly or covertly with homosexuality.”

And thanks to all for their comments on this thread.  Fantastic discussion.
Best, Ron



On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Fred Camper <f at fredcamper.com> wrote:

> The CBS goes Underground thread, and the exchange with Jonathan about TIME
> articles, got me thinking about this, I don't know why. I guess it's part
> of "our" history. I wonder if others can add to my short list:
>
> 1. An early (1950s?) article by Henry Hart in "Films in Review." This was
> maybe the worst. It described a screening of Markopoulos films at an NYU
> class in coded terms that left no doubt for those in the know that the
> films were being attacked for being "homosexual," though I don't think that
> or any related word was ever used. I have a copy somewhere but can't find
> it easily.
>
> 2. Jonas Mekas himself, in FILM CULTURE 3, issued a nasty attack that he
> has long since retracted, explaining that he really didn't understand the
> US very well at the time. Once again "homosexuality" was one of the bases
> of his attack. One should note that acceptance of homosexuality in 1950s
> America was close to zero.
>
> 3. Worse was Andrew Sarris's mid-1970s attack in the VILLAGE VOICE. This
> was in conjunction with a Whitney Museum-organized series on the history of
> the movement. Most shamefully, he quoted Mekas's article without ever
> mentioning that Mekas himself had long since retracted it (if I remember
> right).
>
> (Maybe I should add that I remain a great admirer of the best writings of
> both Sarris and Mekas.)
>
> 4. Doubtless there have been numerous negative reviews from the early
> years of the movement that were totally non-comprehending. But as late as
> the 1970s the New York Times was printing idiocies such as the Hollis
> Frampton review by Richard Eder. (Searching for those two names on the
> Times's site brings me to a page with links to the review, but in several
> attempts I could not get it to load, though I'm a Times subscriber. If
> anyone else can retrieve it, please post.) It had an obscure comment
> griping about Frampton's use of "time," which apparently meant that Eder
> felt bored.
>
> For better or (possibly) for worse, the copying of avant-garde techniques
> in TV commercials and music videos had, by the 1980s, greatly reduced the
> complaints about "rapid cutting," "gives me a headache," and so on. Even
> the old "masturbatory" accusation, found in the TIME article that Jonathan
> posted, is heard more rarely today, perhaps because more people now
> understand that there is nothing wrong with this sexual practice.
>
> Today, with people of all ages posting all sorts of work, including work
> that has all the techniques and the "look" of avant-garde" film, the
> "movement" does not, I think, have the same meaning that it had for me when
> I discovered it in 1963. This is not to say that great new work cannot be
> made, but, even more so than when I wrote my article proclaiming the
> movement's "death" in Millennium Film Journal's twentieth anniversary issue
> (1987), filmmakers should understand that simply scratching on film, or
> creating abstract imagery, has no particular originality or merit in
> itself. Of course this was always true,  but it grows ever more true.
>
> Fred Camper
> Chicago
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20140531/cb0c6666/attachment.html>