Three 3 : |əˈpäkəˌlips| |ˌpikəˈresk|

Sitney, “Apocalypses and Picaresques”

2. Why does Sitney argue that synechdoche plays a major role in Christopher Maclaine’s The End, and how does the film anticipate later achievements by Brakhage and the mythopoeic form?

As Sitney puts it “the combination of picture and sound at the conclusion of the next episode exemplifies the latter.” The End combines many seemingly unrelated shots and we as the viewer are forced to make the connection thought juxtaposition and the realization that the minor details describe the whole picture. Brahkage uses this same idea in many of his films as well. Breasts represent mountains and then a urn related shot of actual mountains takes on a double meaning. In Dog Star Man We never see the man climbing the mountain directly but throughout context and juxtaposition as well as composite modes we understand that it is happening.



3. What are some similarities and differences between the apocalyptic visions of Christopher Maclaine and Bruce Conner?

Both filmmakers explored the idea of an apocalyptic message in the form of experimental film. Conner was an artist and sculptor before he became involved with film. His films were very much an extenuation from his collage work. He used found footage to create his filmic structures as opposed to Maclaine.

4. Why are the films of Ron Rice (The Flower Thief) and Robert Nelson (The Great Blondino) examples of Beat sensibility and what Sitney calls the picaresque form?

Sitney describes these films as having elements of the ironic, absurd, anarchistic, and infantile. Each film follows the "adventures" of a questionable main character, (The flower Theif ; a wild man and The Great Blondino; a tight rope walker). Both films seems to have a beginning and end but the middle could be extended inevitably. Both films embrace "the rejection of social aspects of film."


Bruce Jenkins, “Fluxfilms in Three False Starts.”

5. How and why were the “anti-art” Fluxfilms reactions against the avant-garde films of Stan Brakhage and Kenneth Anger. [Hint: Think about Fluxus in relation to earlier anti-art such as Dada, and Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain."]

For every movement there is an equal and opposite anti-movement. These film developed in a way to combat the high art, elitist avant-garde stereotype that was become more popular. Dada art developed to poke fun at the art world and create absurdist art in a time these artists believed was becoming insane. Fluxfilms were similar in the way they used humor to satire their counter parts.

6. What does Jenkins mean by the democratization of production in the
Fluxfilms?

Fluxfilms were criticizing and parodying a mode of film production that was extremely personal and often starred the filmmaker himself/herself. The film combated the physical form as well as this means of production. If a art film was personal and anti- art film must be democratic. This 'anti-art' idea was shared by a number of people and create by them as a group.

7. Why does Jenkins argue that Nam June Paik’s Zen for Film “fixed the material and aesthetic terms for the production of subsequent Fluxfilms”? How does it use the materials of the cinema? What kind of aesthetic experience does it offer?

Jenkins the first screening of Zen for Film was the birth of Fluxfilm. Sesequent films were then able to get around production cost, lights, sets,editing, sound. The aesthetic of the film was constantly evolving. Although to most people this film was 'nothing', the dust, scratches, and other imperfections became the only details one could comprehend while watching the film. Because this film accentuates only these micro details, its is literally never the same film upon multiple viewings.