Kenneth Anger on DVD

[Lino]

Another review

[sevenarts]

I would enjoy to read some actual discussion on these films. I have been looking forward to be able to see these films for many years, so I am aware of Anger's reputation, and can appreciate the films for their historical impact. However, (and I hasten to add that I have only watched the first three films in the set so far) aside from a few moments that are unquestionably striking, these films did not really make a deep impression on me personally.

I too would like to see this thread develop into some deeper discussion. This set has been pretty much my first exposure to Anger as well (although I saw a lousy downloaded version of Fireworks a while before it came out), and it's been a pretty mystifying yet enthralling experience. I have to say, I love every film in the set, and these are some visually stunning films. But I don't feel like I've been able to get very far beyond the surface on them, if there even is very much beyond the surface beauty. Fireworks seems to be the most meaning-laden of the films, with its intense exploration of fantasies, male sexuality, and Freudian imagery. But I'm a little less sure on the other films in the set -- they all seem to deal in fantasy and imagination, but beyond that their purpose seems to be largely aesthetic and visual.

Not that that's by any means a bad thing, and I've been blown away by these films primarily on a visceral, imagistic level. Anger uses color better than practically any other director I can think of, and these dazzling fantasy visions are almost overwhelming, especially Inaugauration of the Pleasure Dome. So I don't know if anyone is going to be able to increase your enjoyment of the films if you don't respond to them on this immediate level. There's a lot to be said for (but not necessarily about) films like this that are primarily fantasy projections and visual explorations. And Anger's work collected on this set is probably best experienced as a joyous and beautiful celebration of imagination and fantasy.

[Anonymous]

I would be happy to go into depth here, which I can do at the end of the week when work cools down.

[Scharphedin2]

Thanks Stan, I definitely will look forward to reading how you respond to these films.

Certainly, Rabbit's Moon is beautifully filmed, and I enjoyed it on that level. I am familiar with the Comedia del'Arte, so the characters were familiar, and to some extent I appreciated that Anger was playing off these tales. The use of the vintage pop songs stands in contrast to the mythical imagery, and places the characters in a new context, but I was not sure if there was any deeper purpose to it all (my ear was not fast enough to catch all the lyrics).

Maybe it is simply that, knowing the iconic status of Anger, I expected there to be so much here, and maybe there is, but I just did not get below the surface then (as Sevenarts puts it).

With Fireworks I was even more at a loss. I can understand how groundbreaking the film must have been back in the late forties in depicting these fantasies of a gay and sado-masochistic nature. In a way I suppose if I allow the film to transport me in that way I can see how utterly striking the film is (or must have been). Looking at the film more strictly "as film", however, there were only a few moments that really made an impression on me.

I sat down to watch this film in the same breath as Epstein's "Tempestaire", Deren's films of the forties, and Franju's "Blood of the Beasts", and expected "Fireworks" to be as cinematically striking, and to affect me as deeply, but felt that cinematically it was far from the level of these other films.

[the dancing kid]

My reading of 'Rabbit's Moon' is that it's essentially an allegory of cinema. By that I mean that the magic-lantern show (and Pierrot's reaction to it) can be seen as a representation of either cinema in general, or 'Rabbit's Moon' as an individual work. Anger (to some extent) considered his films to be spells that he worked on his audience, and the sense of enchantment that Pierrot experiences strikes me as similar to what Anger would like his audience to feel. There are also those brief moments of address to the audience, which actually seem to pop up pretty consistently Anger's work. In this film, I take the sudden clap during the pantomime routine and the thud of Pierrot at the end to be forms of address, mostly because they are the only diegetic sounds featured in the film. The clap is directed to Pierrot, but if we can consider him "the spectator", then I think the clap can also be seen as directed toward us (and again because of the break in the sound). I think this film (and some of Anger's other work) is highly mimetic of silent cinema, and a lot of early silent films were intent on representing cinema itself, either through a display of technology and movement, or more literally through mise en abyme. 'Rabbit's Moon' strikes me as falling within that tradition.

[zedz]

I see Anger's body of work as a kind of cornucopia of avant-garde imagery (which has insinuated its way into later avant-garde film traditions and, quite thoroughly, into the mainstream), but also as a charged meeting ground for pre-existing filmic traditions. In the 40s and 50s films alone, you've got work that draws on Cocteau's surrealism, Deren's psychodrama, Hollywood glamour and Eisenstein's montage. And what arises from that unholy amalgam can seem sui generis, like the glorious Eaux d'artifice. In turn, you can draw a direct line from Eaux d'artifice to Peter Greenaway, or from Puce Moment to the Kuchars and John Waters.

In his later works, Anger also taps into pop and the 1960s / 70s counterculture in very profound ways, and the influence these films exert is even more pervasive (starting, at least, with Performance and cutting deep into mainstream filmmaking in the 70s and 80s).

Scorpio Rising was one of the most popular films of the American avant-garde, and it's hard to believe that an experimental filmmaker operating in the 1970s like David Lynch was not aware of it, or hadn't seen it. I think its influence on Blue Velvet goes deeper than simply the coincidence or not of a particular song. The extreme innocence / demonic experience dynamic found in both films (and in Twin Peaks) is actually pretty rare. Few other filmmakers cut their saccharine with strychnine to this extent. Plus, Blue Velvet also evokes certain other tropes of Scorpio Rising, such as the juxtaposition of the surface action with old black-and-white films on TV.

The recent scarcity of Anger's films in the DVD-scape shouldn't mislead you: many of these films (in whatever version) were staples of museum / art-house programming for decades, and a whole generation of American filmmakers grew up with them.

[denti alligator]

I watched Puce Moment tonight and was blown away by it. Most shocking to me is the music. This can't be from 1949, can it? This sounds like a psych-folk experiment circa 1969, if not later. And it's pretty good, too. Can anyone confirm that the soundtrack is from a later date? Anger says nothing about it on the commentary.

[sevenarts]

I watched Puce Moment tonight and was blown away by it. Most shocking to me is the music. This can't be from 1949, can it? This sounds like a psych-folk experiment circa 1969, if not later. And it's pretty good, too. Can anyone confirm that the soundtrack is from a later date? Anger says nothing about it on the commentary.

the song's by jonathan halper, it's called "i am a hermit," and it's from 1967. it's definitely perfect for the film, and now that i've watched it a few times, i can't even imagine it without the song.

so was puce moment even screened when it was first made, or was it only later that he salvaged the abandoned puce women? if it did show in 1949, does anybody know what soundtrack anger was using back then?

[denti alligator]

I watched Puce Moment tonight and was blown away by it. Most shocking to me is the music. This can't be from 1949, can it? This sounds like a psych-folk experiment circa 1969, if not later. And it's pretty good, too. Can anyone confirm that the soundtrack is from a later date? Anger says nothing about it on the commentary.

the song's by jonathan halper, it's called "i am a hermit," and it's from 1967. it's definitely perfect for the film, and now that i've watched it a few times, i can't even imagine it without the song.

How did you find this out? Who is this Halper guy, anyway? Also, it sounds to me like two different songs on the soundtrack. Technically, then, this is a 1967 film, not a 1949 film, if the soundtrack Anger wanted wasn't "found" or made until '67.

I don't understand why this film is considered so underwhelming by forum members. I thought it was fantastic. The whole set is great. I'm assuming Volume II will pick up chronologically with Anger's next four films.

[sevenarts]

How did you find this out? Who is this Halper guy, anyway? Also, it sounds to me like two different songs on the soundtrack. Technically, then, this is a 1967 film, not a 1949 film, if the soundtrack Anger wanted wasn't "found" or made until '67.

I don't understand why this film is considered so underwhelming by forum members. I thought it was fantastic. The whole set is great. I'm assuming Volume II will pick up chronologically with Anger's next four films.

Google is my friend. And you're right, two songs by Halper, though I can't seem to find the name of the other. It doesn't seem like Halper ever did much or anything else either, so I'm guessing he was probably a friend of Anger's.

I agree with you on Puce Moment, it might even be my favorite film in the set. It's slight, yes, but it's my opinion that ALL these films are primarily visual pleasures, and this definitely did it for me the best in that regard. The silent film tribute is obvious and well executed -- it feels like what would've happened had silent films survived into the Technicolor era. Gorgeous stuff.

[Arn777]

I also watched Puce Moment last night and loved it too. I was actually wondering about the song too, so thanks for the info.

[Matt]

So, I listened to all of the commentaries last night. It's a mixture of the obscure ("That's Crowley's symbol for Baphomet") and the obvious ("It looks like he's swallowing the jewels, but it's a trick"). There are a few moments where Anger explains what's happening on screen and how it relates to the narrative or points out who people are and what they did in "real life," but I'm shocked at how much silence there is on the commentary tracks. In person, you cannot get Anger to shut up if you paid him to, but on this disc, it's just a comment here and a comment there--very little historical context, information on how the film came about, why he made the film, etc. Most maddeningly, he constantly alternates between referring to himself in the third person and the first: "That's Kenneth Anger's eye there. That's all you can see of me." It's like he's Ricky Henderson.

I wish someone had just interviewed him on each film at length and then edited the interviews down into a commentary. Most of the films are very short, so there's no reason for silence at all on a commentary track given Anger's interesting life and the opacity of his films.

[tartarlamb]

I wish someone had just interviewed him on each film at length and then edited the interviews down into a commentary. Most of the films are very short, so there's no reason for silence at all on a commentary track given Anger's interesting life and the opacity of his films.

I was disappointed with the commentary too, having heard so much about what a great garrulous guy Anger is. I was particularly annoyed not so much that he stated the obvious but that he kept stating and restating it. "I chose a midget because I wanted to make the fountains look larger..." "You see, its a perspective thing, the fountains look very large. Thats why I chose a midget..." "And here she looks very small. These fountains aren't really very large, they just look that way..." Okay, got it.

Oh well, the films are nice.

[Matt]

The commentaries are very similar to Charles Nelson Reilly's track on the "Lidsville" disc; about all you learn from that is that Reilly thinks the show was very clever and that his costume was hot. And what more interesting people can you think of than Kenneth Anger and Charles Nelson Reilly? Yes, I know, Don Knotts. But he's dead (rest his immortal soul).

[Michael]

Just made through the disc.

Fireworks is okay. It lacks something.. emotions, perhap. For a really visceral and great experimental film made around the same time as Fireworks, check out Un chant d'amour. This one will shake you.

An air of melancholy breezes through the delicately beautiful Puce Moment. Shimmering gowns, perfume bottles, dogs, stairs, blue Hollywood sky. Dorothy Vallens' reincarnation?

Rabbit Moon is trite. I couldn't wait for it to stop moving!

Eauz d'Artifice is sublime. Thrilling. Brilliant editing. Must be shown in every film studies class.

Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome. I need to see this one again. Not sure what to make of this.

[Matt]

Michael, try to remember that Fireworks was made by a 17-year-old kid over a weekend while his parents were away and Un Chant d'amour was made by a 40-year-old accomplished playwright and novelist and was shot by an uncredited Jean Cocteau (who was a great admirer of Anger even then). Though Fireworks is really rough and doesn't quite get going until the "gents" section, I think it's full of emotion, particularly fear and intense desire.

[Michael]

Michael, try to remember that Fireworks was made by a 17-year-old kid over a weekend while his parents were away

For real? That certainly doesn't look that way. Wow, that's giving me a new perspective. A 17 year old kid filming something like that at home over a weekend.. utter genius and what balls he got.

[Matt]

Michael, try to remember that Fireworks was made by a 17-year-old kid over a weekend while his parents were away

For real? That certainly doesn't look that way. Wow, that's giving me a new perspective. A 17 year old kid filming something like that at home over a weekend.. utter genius and what balls he got.

That's Anger's version of the story anyway. There is some doubt surrounding his actual age. Some sources put his as being born in 1927, others in 1930. He certainly doesn't look 8 years old to me in the available stills from A Midsummer Night's Dream (1935).

[Matt]

Even though I'm a staunch defender of Anger's work, I guess I have to admit, too, that I've never been bowled over by Fireworks. I still think it's an amazing piece of work for a young man to have created on his own in late 1940s America, but as a film outside of it's context it works better as a collection of startling images than anything else.

The milk, the opening of the "chest" with the gauge inside, the hand-painting over the face of the lover, the restoration of the broken hand sculpture--all of these are brilliant images pulled directly from Anger's imagination. The dance with the Christmas tree, the ogling of the bodybuilder, and even the roman candle crotch have all always seemed rather juvenile to me, and the film as a whole is pretty clumsily assembled. That's not to say I don't find it moving on the whole, but perhaps I'm willing to forgive a lot because of what Anger later went on to do (Scorpio Rising, Invocation of My Demon Brother--which I find a very frightening film--and Kustom Kar Kommandos--which I agree is his best film).

Seeing the "new" Rabbit's Moon on a big screen projected from film was an amazing experience. The two brief moments of diegetic sound (the harlequin's hand clap and Pierrot's final fall) surprised me and were very effective, but my favorite part was the repeated overlapped zoom into the paper moon. I love repeated shots/sequences in film and I thought this really made the film. Otherwise, true, it's just a clever little Commedia dell'Arte diversion that reminds me I should watch Les Enfants du Paradis again soon, but one has to remember that nobody, absolutely nobody, was making films like this at the time, especially not with a soundtrack by (gasp) black artists. One also has to remember that it, like Puce Moment and Kustom Kar Kommandos, is just a fragment of a larger planned work. That doesn't mean it can't stand on it's own, but think how impressive a piece of work Mulholland Dr. is and then think how much more impressive it is since it started out as a failed television pilot for a major network.

[Lino]

I still haven't received my set yet but does the booklet contextualise Anger's work in some way? Or offer some perpective on why his films were so original for their time?

[Matt]

I still haven't received my set yet but does the booklet contextualise Anger's work in some way? Or offer some perspective on why his films were so original for their time?

Not a whole lot. Your best bet for that is these books.

[Gregory]

The milk, the opening of the "chest" with the gauge inside, the hand-painting over the face of the lover, the restoration of the broken hand sculpture--all of these are brilliant images pulled directly from Anger's imagination.

Or maybe indirectly, filtered through a huge Cocteau influence (not to denigrate the kid of course).

[swimminghorses]

Acccording to this month's cover story from Film Comment the second set of Kenneth Angers films will be released this July!

[mikeohhh]

best year ever!

[Lino]

Acccording to this month's cover story from Film Comment the second set of Kenneth Angers films will be released this July!

Already? I was thinking I'd have to wait another 5 years or something! Thank God the first set apparently sold well. That's the only explanation I can think of for the second one to appear so soon.

Scorpio Rising. Sigh. Restored. Sigh. Finally. Sigh

edit: just been to the Fantoma website and they do confirm that a second volume will be coming out this Summer. Joy!