Is Experimental Cinema Interactive? Part I
‘Experimental’ is an enormous genre; of course, it is exceptionally subjective. Hence, right at the beginning, I must mention that I will be referring to films experimental films I have seen or films I consider experimental. There are sub-genres within the experimental genre, but more or less, we all can agree that experimental cinema, in non-academic terms, is the cinema we do not understand in its entirety at first glance. It primarily leans toward showcasing our feelings or emotions in an investigative way, almost as if the filmmakers enter our minds, gather the data, and then present the data in a way we cannot claim as our personal experience, but we empathize. While all narrative films persistently experiment with their storytelling methods, experimental films navigate their audiences through the story. They are like a local guide who would take you to a beach and tell you what it has to offer, but ultimately it is up to you which feature of the beach you want to explore. And therefore, when you go back from vacation, what you would tell about the beach to your colleagues, friends, or family is based on your interaction with the beach; and the same beach is totally different from the story your friend would share with somebody else.
One of the principal reasons I got into experimental cinema is the persistent predictability in most mainstream narrative films. Fortunately, I have not reached the point where mainstream films are altogether boring to me, but I certainly am at the place where most of them don’t surprise me, either. I enjoy them and learn more about filmmaking. However, they (narrative films) don’t have the magic they had on me a few years back. The experimental films, however, do a lot of magic. They give me the feeling I got from when I tried the shot of espresso for the first time. I bet you know the feeling!
The ‘no-dialogue’ is one of the key reasons why experimental films work so well for me. I believe the absence of sound deepens the connection between me and the visuals on the screen. It is exactly like reading a book. The writer has written the words, but our mind creates the visuals as we read. The filmmaker presents us with the visuals, and our subconscious makes the meaning out of it. It is a conversation that builds up between us and the visuals. Tony Zhou explains this in his video essay- “How Does an Editor Think and Feel” When I watch the characters who do not speak, I observe more. That’s the first reason why I think experimental cinema is interactive cinema. The sound design certainly enhances that experience. But not the dialogues. With dialogues, I am an observer; without them, I am a participant. Take an example from mainstream narrative drama shows such as Better Call Saul or Breaking Bad. These shows are big, mainstream, and dialogue heavy. And you can argue that their dialogues are widely popular. While the dialogue does add to their story, observe each one of these episodes has one or two scenes with no dialogue. Purely visual, accompanied by non-diegetic sound design. Why is that? Because we need time to process the meaning behind information. Dialogue gives us information, but visuals unfold the meaning.
Surely, the technology of VR and AR are making us capable of interacting with digitally made characters in an infinite digital space, but what about interacting with our deepest fears, desires, and dreams that are being shown to us without any linear editing?
If you have read up until now, you are already familiar with the likes of Maya Deren, Bruce Connor, Joseph Cornell, and Arthur Lipsett. Now, these filmmakers were legit experimental filmmakers. They certainly developed a unique language for cinema. I plan to write separately on their work since there is a lot that can be written for each one of them. But for now, I want to focus on filmmakers who experimented within the frame of mainstream narrative films, and to me, their work has been an interactive experience without the need for a VR set.
Andrew Stanton, writer, and director of two of my favorite films, Finding Nemo (2002) and Wall. E ( 2008) said in his ted talk — The Clues to a Great Story that every great story has a beginning, middle, and end. Not necessarily in the same order! That idea is somehow stored in my head, even when watching movies like Wall. E clearly has a beginning, middle, climax, and end; as a viewer, I think to myself, what if the beginning of this film is actually not the beginning? I am unsure if it's just me or if some of you felt this while watching Wall. E- that when a scene occurs, I am also simultaneously thinking about what similar must have happened in their lives. There’s a montage of Wall-E and Eve getting to know each other, just a regular outstanding Pixar montage. However, many images were popping into my head that was not in the film—such as Wall- E and Eve on a date in a Chinese restaurant, dropping their robot kids at school, petting a unicorn, and more. I am not saying there is a parallel storyline I was coming up with. Still, these external images from the events that did not occur in the film popping up in my mind is a sign of me mentally getting closer to these characters without deliberate effort. Isn’t this interactive?
In the coming parts of this topic, I want to explore the works of Tarkovsky.
Stay tuned.
My name is Rutuj, I go by RJ. I am a video editor and a colorist.
