Hi Pip,
Me neither and I don’t want speak for those who proposed/defined the
corporeal turn in avant-garde film, but my guess is that some
experimental films – to a lesser or greater extent – only reference
selected genre conventions and should not be necessarily considered
horror or pornographic films per se unless the makers themselves label
them as such. The same goes for road movies as experimental film usually
defies genre, narrative, editing and other conventions; at least this is
what I suggest in the book. So you may be a bit disappointed as I don't
discuss this theory in much detail, but merely use some aspects of it to
study how particular films explore a sensuous experience of travel, the
driver-car’s embodied connection to their surroundings and other things
(my focus was on case studies rather than film theory).
Again, I appreciate your interest in the book and thanks for your
comments and the info on these films! I’ll take a look at them when I
get a chance.
All the best!
Kornelia
W dniu 14.03.2023 o 04:48, Pip Chodorov pisze:
Hi Kornelia,
Thank you for your replies! I really can’t think of many horror films
in American experimental films of the 1960s and 1970s and the ones
involving sexuality are mostly not pornographic so I will be very
curious to read your book and learn about this.
You should be able to see the films of Guttenplan and Razutis through
the documentation center at Light Cone in Paris.
For Taylor Mead’s home movies, we released them on DVD through Re:Voir
and you can find them on the re-voir.com <http://re-voir.com> website
or the Re:Voir Online mobile application.
Best wishes,
Pip
On Mar 14, 2023, at 4:14 AM, Kornelia Boczkowska
<kornelia.boczkow...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Pip,
Many thanks for your interest, you’ve definitely raised some
interesting points here. Yes, these questions are actually discussed
in the book in more detail, but let me clarify some of them here:
Re the corporeal turn (see Chapter 1) – since the book focuses
primarily on American films, I situate my discussion of these works
within the corporeal turn in American avant-garde film (see Elder
1997; Osterweil 2014; Máté 2021) and apply it to the study of
“non-body” genres, specifically road movies (as compared to “body
genres,” hence my reference to horror and pornography), through the
lens of the mobilities paradigm, haptic visuality, cinematic
tactility and other approaches. Although the corporeal turn was
fundamental to the American experimental film practice of the 1960s
and 1970s, which moved from exploring psychic reality to portray the
body in extreme circumstances through conventions related to horror
and pornography, among other things, I’m trying to demonstrate that
experimental road movies also showcase a multi-sensory nature of the
film image. I’m sure that body genres were popular in the 1970s
French avant-garde film scene (though I don’t know much about that,
to be honest), but extending the methodological framework to include
such works would not necessarily make sense in view of the book’s
focus on American avant-garde film and mentioning them in this
specific context would have to be really well justified.
Re pure diary films – I’ve only seen Home Movies at Anthology Film
Archives, but the AFA staff couldn’t arrange more than one research
visit for me at the time, so I didn’t discuss it in my book. Travel
Songs was only mentioned once as a travel film and there’s a
distinctive difference between how we define a travel film and a road
movie – I believe Mekas’ film may qualify as representative of the
former genre.
As you said, Bent Time is a road movie without cars, so it doesn't
really fit the definition of the road movie genre, as it functions in
film criticism and elsewhere (see Chapter 1). Perhaps it's more of a
walking film? Go! Go! Go! is a city symphony film more than anything
else, but note that much of the footage was shot through the car's
window.
I actually believe At Land can be considered a travel film as it
depicts Maya Deren’s journey through the psychical spaces of water,
air, earth, etc. and the psychic spaces of her own self (see Noble
2017). Same for Scorpio Rising through its emphasis on the fetishes
of mobility and riding/movement, symbolically conveyed in the
recurrent theme of a queer erotic quest (see Baker 2015; Boczkowska
2019).
So it basically boils down to the use of definitions. Of course, this
is debatable and you have every right to disagree with my
understanding of these works. Please let me know if you have any
further questions/comments.
PS. San Francisco Diary '79 and Amerika sound really exciting, thanks
for bringing them to my attention! I’ll try to figure out where/how
to actually see them.
Kornelia
--
Frameworks mailing list
Frameworks@film-gallery.org
https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org