Saturday, December 8, 2007

Blog-A-Thon: SHORT FILM WEEK (12/2 - 12/8)


Short Film Week is now over. The blog-a-thon was a great success, and I think we received a number of very interesting entries.

Be sure to check out my blog-a-thon co-host Culture Snob as well.



Day 7: 12/8
Two more Looney Tunes cartoons at Only the Cinema
Opening credits of Dexter and A brief blog-a-thon discussion at Scanners
In praise of the music video at Culture Snob
On an ad for Now magazine at Maul of America



Day 6: 12/7
Six Chuck Jones cartoons at Only the Cinema
Our Friend the Atom at Liverputty
Andrea Arnold's Wasp at Fin de Cinema
What's Opera, Doc? at The House Next Door
Stephen Nadelman's Terminal Bar at Culture Snob



Day 5: 12/6
Four short films at Only the Cinema (Mekas, Franju, Hestand, DeMond)
Pedro Almodóvar's Shrinking Lover at Culture Snob
Eli Roth's Thanksgiving trailer at Is That So Wrong?
Short Film Year: A Remembrance at Forward to Yesterday
Art Clokey's Gumbasia at Too Many Projects Film Club
Thomas the Tank Engine at Gee Bobg
Raymond Red's Anino at Critic After Dark



Day 4: 12/5
Three short films at Only the Cinema (Haynes, Melville, Saul Levine)
Short films and the Academy (cont'd) at Strange Culture
A Short Film About Failure: Contact at Culture Snob
René Laloux's How Wan-Fô Was Saved at Lessons From the School of Inattention
Brakhage's Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes at Too Many Projects Film Club
Short films and the Academy Awards at Strange Culture
Lucifer Rising 2: Bee Girls, Lifesize Cats, etc... at Fin de Cinema (20 more music videos)



Day 3: 12/4
Three films by Hiroshi Teshigahara at Only the Cinema
Sitcom Themes and Broadway at Filmbo's Chick Magnet
Mark Osborne's More at Lazy Eye Theatre

An old post on Two Maya Deren shorts at Ferdy On Films

A wealth of old riches from Quiet Bubble: Weerasethakul’s Anthem | Brakhage's Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes and Window Water Baby Moving | Feist music video



Day 2: 12/3
Three Free Cinema shorts at Only the Cinema
Piet Kroon's T.R.A.N.S.I.T. at Culture Snob
Radiohead's No Surprises at Under the Influence
Lucifer Rising, Come Into My World at Fin de Cinema (thoughts on 20+ music videos)
Three New Order music videos at Eternal Sunshine of the Logical Mind
Paris je t'aime at Fin de Cinema



Day 1: 12/2
Five short films at Only the Cinema (Haynes, Leconte, Anger, and Rybczynski)
Cronenberg's Camera at Culture Snob
Filipino short films at Lessons From the School of Inattention



Preliminary Writings
Introductory Thoughts at Culture Snob
Scorsese's Key to Reserva at Only the Cinema

Short Film Week, Day 7: Two Looney Tunes Cartoons


[This entry is a contribution to the Short Film blog-a-thon being hosted right here at Only The Cinema, in association with Culture Snob.]

After my entry yesterday on Chuck Jones, I decided to dedicate my last blog-a-thon post to a short by another animation great, Tex Avery. Red Hot Riding Hood is probably Avery's best known cartoon, done a few years after he'd left Warner Brothers for MGM. As the title implies, it's a hilarious and raunchy updating of the story Little Red Riding Hood, featuring a wildly escalating series of physical gags that catapults the short from one moment to the next; after the opening minutes, there's little regard for traditional narrative, just a series of riotous slapstick routines. The film starts normally enough, though, seemingly just another Red Riding Hood retelling, with a narrator providing the usual story. The difference is obvious right away, though, as the narrator's voice is just dripping in irony, all but openly deriding the words he's saying, delivering them in the kind of condescending kiddy voice that the more smarmy adults sometimes adopt in addressing children. This narration is a sign, right from the start, that this won't be a normal fairy tale cartoon, and the point is underscored when, moments later, the characters themselves revolt against the scenario, refusing to go through with yet another iteration of the same old story.

The narrator, confronted with their anger, is forced to comply, and he shifts the story to a big city, where the wolf is a club-hopping ladies' man in a stretch limo, Granny is a sophisticated old dame, and Red is a sexy nightclub singer, dancing in a skimpy red outfit and shedding her trademark red cape and hood very early in her act. It's a hilarious set-up, and perfectly executed. Red's nightclub performance becomes an excuse for an elaborate series of jokes on the wolf's sexual excitement, as his eyes literally bulge from his head, he howls and smashes his fist (and eventually a chair) against the table, and finally sets up a Rube Goldberg-like clapping machine so he can applaud while leaving a free hand to whistle. All the while, Red sizzles as much as a cartoon character can sizzle, swaying and crooning and looking very much like the Jessica Rabbit predecessor she is, earning the wolf's overblown admiration with every shake and shimmy. From there, it just gets sillier and crazier, as the wolf takes off in pursuit of the coy Red, who rejects his advances initially with shyness and finally with a screamed "NO!" that sends him flying through the air. The film externalizes the mechanics of sexual desire and rejection like no other, with every facet of the wolf's body reflecting his manic want for Red; when he first sees her, he elevates into the air, his nose pointing forward, his whole body directed towards her, making of himself a giant arrow pointing at the thing he wants. And one negative word from this object of desire can send him reeling, with a force and physicality as though he'd actually been hit, devastating him physically as well as emotionally.

When the action finally arrives at Granny's house, she becomes the third point of a love triangle, since she reacts to the sight of the wolf much as he had to the sight of her granddaughter. The chase then gets reversed, with her heading after the wolf through her funhouse apartment, which is loaded with false doors — leading to a 60-story drop or a brick wall — and traps for the luckless wolf. It all ends with the wolf's bitter suicide, accomplished with a massive pistol on both sides of his head, and the restarting of the cycle with the wolf's ghost howling at sexy Red. This is a masterpiece of outlandish slapstick, gleefully violating physical laws with the characteristic flair that animators like Avery, Jones, Clampett, and Freleng brought to the golden age of cartoons. Watching something like this, totally familiar by now (even though it's scandalously not available on DVD yet), it's obvious how much more the cartoons of earlier eras had to offer than today's animation. Until it finally arrives on DVD, you can watch it here.



Finally, I couldn't resist going back for one more Chuck Jones short, this time the middle installment in his classic Bugs/Daffy/Elmer hunting trilogy, Rabbit Seasoning. This is quite possibly Bugs' most passive and laconic performance, in which in order to outwit both Daffy and the hunting Fudd, he need only say a few words and let the other two do the rest of the hard work. Daffy is trying to get Elmer to shoot Bugs, but the clever bunny comes up with a simple trick to confuse matters, so that inevitably Daffy gets shot instead. Bugs just acquiesces to the hunter, and asks, "OK, would you like to shoot me now or later?" When Daffy jumps in yelling "shoot him now," it's all over, because Bugs just leads him through some tricky word play that goes differently every time but always winds up with some variation of a confused and annoyed Daffy yelling to Elmer, "OK, shoot me now!" Even though the whole short is basically comprised of variations on this word game, it doesn't get boring or routine, and it's a delight each time Daffy is shot to see just where his beak is going to wind up — the anatomical incorrectness of these characters is taken to its extreme in Daffy's beak, which seems to be entirely detachable and to leave simply a smooth black surface behind when it's knocked off.

Even Bugs' drag routine in this film is uncharacteristically laidback, as he basically just sits on a log reading, letting the other two hash things out while he seduces Fudd without a word. The obliviousness of Fudd is, as always, something to behold. When the short starts, he doesn't even realize that Bugs is a rabbit until Daffy tells him, and by the end a blonde wig and a little makeup is all it takes for him to forget. This is one of those classic Looney Tunes shorts that, while maybe not as profound as some of the series' absolute high points, is just a whole lot of fun to watch, and not only because it brings back memories of childhood Saturday mornings. Watch it here.

Friday, December 7, 2007

Short Film Week, Day 6: Six Chuck Jones Cartoons


[This entry is a contribution to the Short Film blog-a-thon being hosted right here at Only The Cinema, in association with Culture Snob.]

Tonight, I was inspired by Matt Zoller Seitz's great review of Chuck Jones' classic cartoon What's Opera, Doc?, to make my own night a miniature Looney Tunes extravaganza, revisiting some favorite Jones shorts and a few that are new to me. As for What's Opera, Matt's review does an excellent job of describing what's so compelling about it, but I'll attempt to add a few modest thoughts of my own here. This may not be my favorite Looney Tunes film as it is for Matt (my pick would be Duck Amuck, which I discuss below), but it's undoubtedly in the top of the pack. This short takes advantage of the well-established Elmer Fudd/Bugs Bunny dynamic, in order to translate these characters into a new medium and a new context, where their usual hijinks are elevated to the level of grand drama by Wagner's music and the weaving in of operatic plots.

All the usual Bugs/Fudd plot points are hit along the way. There's the obligatory opening conversation where the hapless Elmer tells Bugs that he's going to kill da wabbit, not realizing, for reasons entirely unexplained, that the wabbit is standing wight there in fwont of him. Uh, sorry, that Fuddian drawl just becomes irresistible after awhile. Why doesn't Elmer realize, anyway? What makes it click for him that Bugs is, in fact, the wabbit he seeks? Who knows, who cares, but the moment does come, like a belated light bulb lighting up a corner of his empty head, and then the chase is off. Step two, of course, involves Bugs in drag, because Bugs is kind of kinky like that. Bugs knows the appeal of a leggy blonde, especially one riding an elephant-sized white horse bedecked with flowers, and his transformation injects the cartoon with a shot of romance. Of course, this too must end, as eventually the steadfast Elmer always figures out that his love is actually that crafty wabbit in disguise. In this case, Jones accomplishes the big reveal with possibly his cleverest feint yet, a beautifully sustained moment in which Fudd sweeps his Brunhilde up into his arms, bending her back as the last chords of their love theme sound off, and Brunhilde's helmet sloooowly, smoothly slides off her head, tumbling step-by-step down the massive staircase below the lovers, letting Bugs' ears flop out loose. And the chase is off again, culminating in Fudd's grand, cataclysmic assault from the heavens — Fudd as a dim-witted and lovesick God, feeling betrayed, smiting down his betrayer in a fit of rage.

This is the typical Elmer-chases-Bugs plot, a distillation of the duo's love/hate relationship that dominated so many classic Looney Tunes cartoons. The reason that this might be the ultimate chronicle of their meeting is the mythological setting. The Looney Tunes characters verge on myth to begin with, inhabiting archetypal roles that they play out in one cartoon after another, perhaps adding details and variations to their myth, but always living up to its basic premises. What's Opera raises the stakes by transferring the Bugs Bunny mythos into the Brunhilde myth and the other grand myths of opera, letting these two mythic modes play off each other and inform each other. The two aesthetics are, in some sense, perfect for each other to begin with — it's not a marriage based on compromise, since Looney Tunes and opera complement each other so well. Both rely on grand gestures, both involve swings from one emotional extreme to another (especially Fudd's rapid transitions from casual chatter to enraged pursuit when he realizes that Bugs has fooled him again), and both use bombastic music to propel the action along. This is a wonderful short, especially perfect for any already-converted Looney Tunes admirers (and really, who doesn't count themselves in that category?), since it plays with familiar tropes and character dynamics in a totally new setting. You can watch the short here.



Next up tonight was Duck Amuck, possibly Jones' best known Looney Tunes outing, and for very good reason. This 1953 metafictional masterpiece was so ahead of its time that even today, it still packs quite a punch and is uproariously funny for every second. The film concerns a baffled and increasingly enraged Daffy Duck's struggles with an aggressively uncooperative animator, who keeps changing the scenery around Daffy, never allowing him to settle into a plot for very long. The beginning of the film briskly moves from a farm to an Arctic wasteland to a Hawaiian tropical forest, with Daffy struggling to keep up by darting off-screen to change outfits and gather the appropriate props for each new setting.

Then Daffy settles down and gets serious, turning to the screen for a sustained argument with his animator, which triggers a masterful sequence of fourth-wall-breaking gags, with the animator's pencil frequently entering the realm of the cartoon to redraw or erase at will. As the film goes on, breaking the fourth wall becomes absolutely destroying it, blowing it up and stomping on the remains, as the film breaks out every trick possible to disrupt the usual boundaries of the cartoon world. Most hilarious is when the soundtrack betrays Daffy, making a guitar he's playing sound like machine gun fire or a car crash, then turning his enraged yell into the howl of a rooster crowing. But the visual disruptions are even more profound, as when the film reel slows down so that parts of two individual frames can be seen at the same time, one above the other, and the two Daffies in these frames begin arguing with each other before pulling each other into a brawl. Later, the very sides of the frame itself turn liquid and unreliable, bending inward on Daffy like putty, forcing him to eventually rip apart the whole thing, leaving shreds of paper hanging everywhere. Daffy's demands for a close-up at one point subtly mock the conventions of star power, and the animator jokingly obliges by zeroing in the frame to focus on Daffy's distant head, without actually making it any bigger. "That's a close-up?" Daffy screams, outraged.

This is one of the loosest, funniest, most inventive classic Warner Brothers shorts, with Jones and his creative team throwing a barrage of ideas at their unfortunate main character, overwhelming the screen with the sheer inventiveness of their concept and the never-ending well of ideas they draw from it. It's such a rich concept that, over 30 years later, comics scribe Grant Morrison would return to Duck Amuck as the raw material for one of the best issues of his Animal Man series, infusing Jones' original concept with a new sense of poignancy and emotion. This cartoon is a true classic, and its enduring status is well-deserved. If by chance you haven't seen it yet, immediately go to watch it here.



Now Hear This is a later Chuck Jones cartoon, from the beginning of the 60s, and its strangeness and lack of the Looney Tunes stable of characters has probably made it a very obscure short — I'd certainly never seen it before until I stumbled across it on YouTube tonight. In some respects, this short expands the aural section of Duck Amuck to the length of a full cartoon, as the entire film consists of an extended series of sound gags set in a near-abstract and fluidly changing milieu. The short takes place in a visual netherworld with no scenery or location — though a waste bin's label identifies the locale as Britain — and the simple plot involves an old man who finds a red horn on the ground and takes it, believing it to be a good replacement for the crumpled old horn he was previously using for a hearing aid.

What follows is almost impossible to describe, a fluid series of jokes with almost no context or narrative rationalism, verging on cartoon surrealism. The best comparison might be as a kind of sequel to Un Chien Andalou, with sounds as the driving force behind the stream of non-sequiturs that pour forth here. The horn at times turns into a shower head, raining on its poor new owner. In another sequence, a bird enters the horn's bell and lays an egg directly into the man's ear; when he shakes the egg out, he hears sawing and hammering sounds from within the egg, leans closer to listen, and is promptly knocked back as the egg grows long, spindly legs and walks away, with a brass band bursting forward through a crack in the front. The man is walking along confusedly, later, when train tracks suddenly begin laying down across the screen, and he hears distant engine noise approaching. He steps off the tracks and out of the way, only to be flattened by a train that unexpectedly comes roaring by at a perpendicular angle to the tracks.

The whole film is dominated by these illogical and absurdist transitions from one moment to the next. It's a film in which irrationality has taken control, using noise and its visual counterpart to disrupt expectations and play with the total aesthetic freedom that a cartoon world provides. Not as formally exacting as Duck Amuck, this is nevertheless a fun and wild experience, an exercise in total freedom from even self-imposed physical rules, so that every moment provides totally unexpected thrills and laughs. Well worth checking out for Jones enthusiasts, and available online here.



The Case of the Missing Hare is a typical Bugs Bunny venture, but one I remember seeing so many times as a kid that it has a nostalgic glow for me probably out of proportion with its actual place in the Looney Tunes pantheon. Not as showy as some other Jones cartoons, this one replays the basic Bugs scenario, this time with a magician as his unwitting victim. It's a gag pile-up, with a funny moment packed into practically every second of the short, whether it's a broadly played physical gag (Bugs pulling himself out of the magician's hat by his own ears, holding himself suspended in the air without explanation), or a nice turn of phrase (I love the fact that this film makes a gag out of the inability to say "prestidigitation").

Bugs has always been my favorite "actor" in the Looney Tunes stable, and his expressive body movements and wiseass attitude are at their peak performance here. Best of all is when the magician tries to pull a rabbit out of a hat, and Bugs, refusing to comply, crawls up the sorcerer's sleeve and pops out of his shirt's neck hole, face to face with him. Bugs puts his arm around the magician's neck, almost caressing him, and squashes their faces together as he taunts him. Even when Bugs isn't in drag, there's always been something strangely sexual about his relationship with his antagonists — the way he sidles up to them, insinuating himself with them, almost seducing them, before going in for the fatal blow of his inevitable violent betrayal. It's what makes him such a compelling character, the way he combines a flippant verbal wit with his sinewy, rubbery movement and physical destructiveness, as well as a minor streak of cowardice that every so often takes over and makes him turn tail and flee.

This is yet another entry in a long line of Bugs vs. Some Poor Schlub shorts, not particularly distinguished from any one of a dozen others, but still hilarious in its own right. You can watch it here.



Fast and Furry-ous was the first outing for Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner, who would continue their silent rivalry in dozens more Warner cartoons all through the 50s and 60s. If all the Looney Tunes gang are somewhat iconic, minimally defined beings with certain archetypal characteristics, these two take this tendency to its absolute extreme. The Road Runner runs, and the Coyote tries to catch him. And... that's it. Period. Throughout dozens of films, dozens of iterations, the Road Runner always runs, and the Coyote is consumed by a maniacal, single-minded desire to catch and eat him, though he never quite manages. There's no dialogue, only the high-pitched "meep! meep!" of the Road Runner before he (she? it?) sticks out its tongue and darts off in a blur, feathers and dust flying behind. The humor of these shorts is therefore purely visual and, yes, physical — it's not for nothing that these cartoons have continually been held up as the example of how kids' cartoons contain unacceptable levels of violence. The primary delight in these shorts is the increasingly complicated Rube Goldberg-like devices and traps to which the Coyote must resort in order to capture his prey, and the inevitable way they backfire to prevent him from reaching his goal.

In this first installment in the long series, the Coyote appropriately starts out simple, attempting to catch his rival in a pure race, in which he is of course left in the dust. He next tries pure blunt force, sticking a metal plate out in front of the Road Runner's path, but the bird proves that it can stop on a dime as well as run at super speeds, and the Coyote is again outwitted. From here, the gags grow progressively more and more baroque, culminating in the outlandish sequence in which the Coyote uses a motor to power a refrigerator, which he straps to his back, forming a makeshift snow machine that spits out snow into a path in front of him, allowing him to ski rapidly in pursuit of the Road Runner. But before that there's probably my favorite Road Runner gag, in which the Coyote paints a stone wall with an image of a tunnel, complete with realistic shadows and perspective lines — the Coyote has studied drawing techniques! — in order to fool the bird into crashing. Can you tell I like metafiction? But the Road Runner, of course, runs right through the tunnel, perhaps smart enough to realize that in this cartoon world, everything is drawn, so he can run through a tunnel drawn by the Coyote just as well as one drawn by a Warner animator. But Wile, not as swift (in both senses of the word), too literalistic and unimaginative, can't make this same mental leap, and when he tries to run through the drawing, he just crashes into the wall.

The Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner skits, like this prototypical example, endure so well because they play off this essential difference between the characters' personalities. The Road Runner is pure unfettered id, creative energy and imagination running free with no desire except to continue running. The Coyote, on the other hand, is chained to his desires, a slave of basic physical needs, and all his ingenuity, no matter how elaborate and seemingly well planned, ultimately fails because his intelligence is being placed in service to his all-consuming want. The Road Runner expends its imaginative energy in pure creation, the act of running for its own sake, while all the Coyote's schemes are pragmatic, intended only to achieve an immediate goal, and therefore lacking in the vital spark which might, ironically, bring him success. This tension, unspoken but sitting quietly at the core of these shorts, drives the interplay between these immortal enemies. This first in the series only begins a cycle of desire and violence that would drive the duo through all their subsequent shorts. Watch how it all starts here.



The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics is another incredibly weird 1960s entry from Jones, working for MGM rather than Warner and again experimenting with visual abstraction, this time seemingly inspired by the work of abstract animator Oscar Fischinger. The film tells the story, in voiceover, of a straight line who falls in love with a dot, though the dot spurns the line as too prosaic and "square," preferring the anarchic fun of an "uncouth" squiggle. This rejection prompts the line to attempt to free himself from his boring non-shape, and eventually this quest teaches him to bend himself into new shapes and control his body for creative purposes. It's apparent right on the film's surface that this is a work about artistic creativity, presenting a thinly veiled critique of abstraction for its own sake — the film all but accuses abstract artists of laziness. Instead, Jones presents the line as a sterling example, since he achieves virtuosity in order to express himself in any way possible, rather than just random anarchy. In this sense, it's not much of a stretch to wonder if Jones was also lashing out at hippie culture, especially in light of the few references to "squares" and the depiction of the rival squiggle as an unwashed bum.

Although the narrative voiceover is mostly lame and the film's message heavy-handed, it does provide plenty of purely visual delights, especially in the form of the line's showing off of his newfound skills in order to win the dot's affection. This sequence provides a perfect opportunity for a showcase of abstract pattern animation, itself a display of technical virtuosity on the part of the animators. There are also some incredibly subtle and surprising sexual subtexts in the film, like the suggestion that the dot and her grubby boyfriend the squiggle are "frolicking and... doing who knows what else." Coupled with the vaguely elicit sensation of watching the dot squirm and roll around within the squiggle's shifting form, this creates a clear image of sexual geometry at work. It's an image that's mirrored at the end, when the dot sidles up to the line and rolls sensuously around his straightened form. Naughty. You can watch the fun here.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Short Film Week, Day 5: Four short films


[This entry is a contribution to the Short Film blog-a-thon being hosted right here at Only The Cinema, in association with Culture Snob.]

Georges Franju's first film, Blood of the Beasts, is a documentary set in a pair of Paris slaughterhouses and their surrounding neighborhoods, contrasting the traditional poetic, romanticized depiction of Paris against the casually administered brutality of these abbatoirs. The film opens on the outskirts of the city: open fields, a train steaming by, an open-air market being set up by the side of the road, two young lovers passionately kissing. From there, Franju ventures into the slaughterhouse, painstakingly following the slaughter and gutting of a horse, with rivers of blood flowing everywhere. The camera even tracks in close to observe skin peeling away from muscle, and the slaughterhouse workers scraping away at the flesh with their knives. This is a totally unflinching depiction of the processes behind the production of meat, and the brutality and goriness of it all is frankly stunning. The contrast between this horror and the context of the surrounding environs provides an additional frisson of tension to this scene via the viewer's memory. When the slaughterhouse workers walk up to the horse with a bolt gun and rapidly place it against the animal's head to kill it, does the audience think of the loving kiss that immediately preceded this scene? It's this tension between the pleasures and beauty of everyday life and the bloody horror of the abbatoir that elevates the film above the level of the typical PETA shockumentary.

The film delves into similar levels of detail for the slaughter of a cow, some young calves for veal, and a large number of sheep. In each instance, Franju focuses on the blood and the peeling back of layers that accompanies these killings. The accumulation of details that the film gathers becomes nearly unbearable by the time it's over — the piles of cow heads, the involuntary twitches of the animals even after decapitation, the canals of blood running along the concrete floor. Franju's camera never flinches away from these details, darting in ever closer to capture every second and nuance of the carnage. It's difficult to take, possibly even more so than Brakhage's similarly gory Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes, because in this case it's not just corpses being dissected, but live animals being killed and ripped apart. Even in black and white, the casual brutality of this process becomes overwhelming and even nauseating.

Franju's documentary thus elicits a primarily physical response, although he's said in interviews that he was aiming for a more distanced, aestheticized perspective from his audiences. But the sheer horror of these sequences, and the film's insistence on intimately capturing every step in the process, makes it difficult to step back from the images and view them objectively. It's a tough, uncompromising film, exposing the violence that exists within the hazy, fog-shrouded streets of romantic Paris.



Mary Hestand's He Was Once is a short parody of the old claymation series Davey and Goliath, accomplished with live actors made up to look like animated dolls. It's as bizarre as you'd expect from that description, and it has a close affinity with the work of Todd Haynes, who produced the short and appears in a cameo role in the first scene. The story is simple: Davey (Todd Adams) sees a bear chained up in town in front of a store, but when he goes home and tells his family, his disciplinarian father doesn't believe him and beats him with a belt for lying. Davey then finds out that his father was lying too, and turns the tables to get his revenge. The underlying theme of the violence and domination inherent in societal structures and familial relationships is a clear connection to Haynes, with the father a petty, dictatorial figure. His spanking of Davey plays out like a torture sequence from a thriller — he's trying to beat Davey into admitting that he's lying, and when that doesn't work he starts beating the dog, Goliath, instead, just to get Davey to crack.

This film's expos#233; of the suppressed ugliness of suburban life is hysterically funny, and the claymation parody is perfectly executed. The characters move in jerky slow motion, and the scene where the mother slaps Davey's sister is a shockingly hilarious moment, the slap and the sister's reaction both happening in awkwardly paced slo-mo. It's a brief film, just 16 minutes long, and available as a very appropriate companion piece to Haynes' Dottie Gets Spanked on the Zeitgeist DVD. This is well worth seeing for anyone who gets a kick out of Haynes' particular brand of subversive humor.



Boo! by Albert DeMond is one of those deliriously silly shorts that could only have come out of classic Hollywood. Using clips from Nosferatu, Frankenstein, and the now-lost Universal thriller The Cat Creeps, DeMond spliced together a rough, jokey story that's meant to be the dream of a man who gulps down lobster and milk right before bedtime. Dream of the Rarebit Fiend this ain't, though. The roughly edited footage is accompanied by a silly voiceover making lame jokes and riffing on the material with some strained stabs at clever wordplay. Most puzzling and out of place are the continuous jokes about Congress: "he acts like Congress, and always ends up where he started." Ha ha, right? It's all along these lines, and only the narrator's cheery enthusiasm saves his delivery from being totally painful — the cheesiness of it all redeems the short as kitsch, at least.

DeMond also seems to have stumbled across some accidental avant-garde techniques, like endlessly looping a few seconds of footage to create hilarious repetitions. At one point, the film gets stuck in a loop cutting back and forth between close-ups on a leering Frankenstein's monster and a screaming woman, with the voiceover providing the sound effects for both. The jerky looped motion and repetitions reminded me of the much later work of avant-garde filmmaker Martin Arnold, who also repurposes other films for his own humorous ends. The obvious difference being, of course, that Arnold's films also critique and deconstruct the societal assumptions encoded in the films he's splicing, whereas DeMond seems content to make shallow jokes. Still, the film remains somewhat funny today, although more for its kitsch value than for any of its actual purported humor.



Scenes From the Life of Andy Warhol is Jonas Mekas' avant-garde documentary capturing a series of small moments and images from Warhol's life, filmed between 1966 and 1982 and completed in 1990, after Warhol's death, with a postscript that features audio from Warhol's memorial service at St. Patrick's Cathedral. This is a warm, energetic film, clearly made with a great deal of love and admiration for Warhol, who is shown mostly in scenes disconnected from his art, hanging out with friends, vacationing, and having fun. The art itself occupies a surprisingly small place in the film, with Warhol signing Polaroids in the midst of a birthday party, or a brief shot of a photo session, or an art gallery show of his work. Mekas puts this artistic output into the context of Warhol's private life, with a fragmentary collage of images of Warhol at play: shopping in a fruit market, spending the summer at a friend's house on Long Island, and hanging out on the edges at parties.

Mekas blends all this together in a rapidly edited montage of impressions and small moments, each individual shot not adding up to much, but the whole thing providing a kind of memory bank of Warhol's life. The film is mostly scored by music from a 1966 performance by Warhol's Factory house band, the Velvet Underground and Nico, starting with a fuzzy, distorted version of "I'll Be Your Mirror" and moving on to a series of lengthy improvisatory jams. Mekas introduces the segments of his film with intertitles describing where and when the images are from, thus providing a sense of historical context, even if many of the titles are allusive and probably intended to be understood only by those who were actually there. In this way, the film is somewhat exclusive, frequently referencing people by first names only, or even not introducing them at all. Warhol was always part of a tight-knit community of artists, friends, and hangers-on, and this film reflects that closeness in its sense of a community that centered around Warhol and has thus lost a great friend with his death.

Other intertitles within the film have a more poetic intent, like the recurring text that reads, "Outside we could hear the ocean." The ocean figures heavily in the film, since so much of the short's length is taken up by a vacation with friends at the shore. Another title reads "This is a documentary film," before a later title takes it back: "This is not a documentary film." Indeed, both are true. Mekas' film does document Warhol's life in the sense that all its images are taken from reality, and represent candid moments with no fictional content. On the other hand, Mekas makes no pretensions to objectivity, and his film is structured not as a straight account but as a series of memories. He brings in footage shot over the course of almost twenty years, so that literally speaking much of this material is a memory for him. The camera remembers images from 16 years of Warhol's life, with greater visual clarity than real memories, perhaps, but with the same distance from the original events. Mekas' subjective blending of these memories into a dense, rapidly edited montage further separates the film from actual lived reality, making it an arrangement of memories meant to convey the visceral experience of being around Warhol. Ultimately, though, this argument cycles around: the film must be a documentary, because it's in search of truth, the truth of Warhol's life, vitality, and friendships.