Directed By: Stan Brakhage
Written By: Stan Brakhage
Main Cast: Stan Brakhage, Jane Brakhage
I'M BEGINNING TO HATE EXPERIMENTAL FILMS!
Note: The "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" book notes that the running time of "Dog Star Man" is thirty minutes. However, it also says and I quote, "...as five discrete sections weave an escalating number of superimposed images...". If you take that to mean that all five sections are to be included as part of the entry of "Dog Star Man", then the film is in fact approximately 70 minutes. Furthermore, icheckmovies.com only lists "Part 1" as part of the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" book/list and the year 1962 also leads me to believe that only "Part 1" was to be included in the entry, seeing as how all five sections span from 1962 - 1964. In not wanting to skip anything that I should've watched for the book, I watched all five parts.
This was actually on my "unfound list" for quite sometime, before I discovered as part of a Stan Brakhage Anthology put out by Criterion and available on Netflix. It's an experimental film and as I make my way deeper and deeper into THE BOOK, I'm really starting to uncover my dislike for such movies.
I'm not even going to bother with trying to relay the plot here, because as far as I'm concerned there wasn't a plot. I'm sure there actually WAS a plot, it's just that I think the film was more of a visual feast and besides I didn't get much in the semblance of a plot anyway. The film is a plethora of images being fired at the screen and is almost headache inducing. The only thing that I was really able to piece together, was a man and his dog climbing a snowy mountainside and fighting for their survival. There were also many other images that flooded the screen, including a baby being born, a mother breastfeeding her baby, many close-up shots of the mother's nipples and even milk being squirted from the breast and at the camera. There were red, blue and yellow hues and the images moved so fast that, at times, the film was like watching a drunk guy strap a camera to his head and then pass out on a pinball machine.
I realize that all art, especially films, is completely subjective and that what may be fully artistic to one, may be garbage to another. In my eyes, "Dog Star Man" is garbage, without question. I really hate to seem so close minded, but I sincerely could not make heads or tails of this thing and I just kept asking myself, "Why is this in THE BOOK??". "I love" how anybody can take a camera and shoot a bunch of worthless images and they get labeled as an artist. If Brakhage had a story to tell here, then why didn't he just tell it to us, instead of making us feel like someone just slipped us acid at the discotheque. This was a really hard picture to get through, add to that the fact that there isn't any sound in "Dog Star Man", which allowed my mind to wander a lot easier than if there had been sound.Maybe there was something in there. Did you find something credible or worthwhile in "Dog Star Man"? If you did, then I BEG you to come here and leave a comment and explain the appeal, because I JUST DO NOT GET IT! Apparently there's something (I don't know if it's a movie or a documentary or what) called "The Art of Vision" that unravels "Dog Star Man" and tells the story in a linear fashion. This could be helpful in my deciphering the film or hell, even listening to the commentary may have helped out. However, I've said it before and I'll say it again - Each film gets one chance, and one chance only, to impress me. If it can't make itself seem worthwhile in one viewing, then it gets a thumbs down and gets no opportunities (like commentaries) to advance it's impression.
RATING: 1/10 I mean it, explain the appeal to me and I promise I won't judge your opinions or bash your tastes...to each his own. It seems to me that, at times, the film worked like a Rorschach painting, having no right or wrong solution and having many different ways to perceive it.
MOVIES WATCHED: 365
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 636
December 12, 2011 1:36am
MMmm.... yes...
ReplyDeleteI managed to track down, at least most of this on Utube. By piecing bits together, I reckon I have seen enough to claim my tick.
I think I am a little more ok with experimental film than you are*, and I wouldn't go as far as hating them, but this one?? Absolutly, I just do not get it at all. I would actually give it another go with a commentary or 'readers notes', but untill then I will happily share your one point.
Not much else to say is there?
* I actually quite like Koyannisqu.. Koyanie..(Drat, I will have to look it up..) Koyaanisqatsi.
Ray
Wow! I like to think I might have influenced somebody with my reviews. After reading this, I know I have. I didn't get it either. When I eventually see The Art Of Vision, I'll tell you if it makes any more sense.
ReplyDeletePlease do.. if you do ever find something that makes sense of this, I'd love to know.
ReplyDeleteThe thing with experimental film is that someone IS trying to say something.. and if I don't get it, I tend to blame myself.
Yes, I know, they could try and not be so deliberatly difficult - and yes, at times you do start to make comments like 'What were they on', and ceratinly you do sometimes suspect you are being jerked around.
At least they are usualy short. At least THE BOOK hasn't made us sit through something like Warhol's 'Empire State' or 'Insomnia'.
Ray
Haha, I absolutely love Stan Brakhage, but can understand the disconnect one would feel when watching his movies. I would strongly suggest getting a physical copy of the criterion release because it helps by adding Brakhage's commentary and historical relevance to each of his films. I am particularly infatuated with his work "Comingled Containers" which clocks in right around three minutes. With that being said Dog Star Man is quite long and can become daunting even for the most ardent of experiment film lovers. I am not sure if Wavelenght by Michael Snow made the 1001 movie list or not, but if it did I would love to hear your thoughts on that. To me that is probably the most intense of the experimental films one could watch.
ReplyDeleteHi Travis.. and sorry it took so long to get a reply.. 'Wavelrngth' .. is that the one where there is a postcard pinned to a wall and the camera slowly zooms (can you slowly zoom in??) in on it? I actually found that rather intriguing... No idea why .. it just somehow kept my attention in a way Brakhage never has .. and now, some years later, i've actually tried several of them.
DeleteANDREW .. I came across a collection of Brakhage .. and I had this dread realisation that I don't think I'd seen the whole thing.. So (and please admire the dedication) did Dog Starman.. all 4 parts plus prelude ..again .. to be sure.
Still didn't get it.
Travis, sorry I never replied. I did do Wavelength and I, like Ray, also found it intriguing. Something about being in a room alone, it all just felt so eerie. I dug the whole feel.
DeleteRay, Dog Star Man may be the worst film in THE BOOK, per my opinion. I also often cite The Color of Pomegranates as one I really hated.
Close call for the title worst film'.. I always avoid the question 'What is your favourite film' as that changes so much as to mood and circumstances.. Same for worst film. I can remember a couple of other eperimental that I thought truely awful.. and much worse. I'm struggling to remember the name, but some images remain.. Oh and there is of course always 'Sound of Music' and 'Wizard of Oz' that feature high on any hate list.
DeleteColour of Pomegranates' .. I'd be hard pushed to 'hate'.. just baffled and bored...
"Hate" is a strong word I suppose. I'd definitely have to think about what I "hate" the most.
Delete