first time and I am intrigued by the statements in the reading that
take a stance on content and subject matter of film.
I always considered the term Avant-Garde in narrow terms, or defined
in terms of filming technique strictly. I never considered that the
Avant-Garde subject matter and treatment of subject involved in such
high notions of social importance and portrayal of reality.
Personally up until now I considered most Avant-Garde film full of hot
air with touching moments between people pushed by editing and camera
technique. I never considered it as trying to fill an important gap
that Hollywood creates as it pursues giant blockbusters and ignores
"life," "reality," "fact" or the "actual," borrowing terms that
Vertov, Grierson, Rotha, Wolfe and many other use.
Mostly "Notes on the Avant-garde Documentary Film" by Ivens and "The
Revolutionary Film - Next Step" by Hurwitz gave me this
interpretation. I would like to comment that in regards to Hurwitz,
his fatalistic vision of the masses leads me to view his work as
lacking any inherit truth - since I disagree strongly with his views.
His nihilism makes his arguments for a separate class of avant-garde
film seem elitist. Existentially he falls into a the category of
Fascist, and calls for revolution but fails to see the nuance between
rebellion and revolution.
The Rebel = good, Revolution often turns into fascism.
And as soon as I learn to comment on others post you will hear more
from me!
Aaron Howell
agh247@nyu.edu