Borwell & Thompson on Experimental Film

In the textbook 'Film Art: An Introduction', David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson define experimental film as a type of film-making which is 'willfully nonconformist', in which some film-makers 'challenge orthodox notions of what a movie can show and how it can show it'. Often such film-makers will work alone (presumably because this better allows them to explore their own ideas and approaches without compromising with somebody else's conflicting ideas, and because this is as detached from the studio system as possible) and independent of the studio system.

Experimental films don't view narrative as a necessity - some experimental films will follow one, others won't - as is their view of any other method of film-making. In this sense, I admire and agree with this approach to film-making. I agree, as Bordwell & Thompson go on to say, referring to the Abstract approach, that 'we usually pay little attention to the sheer pictorial qualities of the shots' in a film - in the sense that we often overlook the fundamental visual qualities of each element composing a shot, such as colour, shape and movement. The article goes on, however, to give an in-depth analysis of 'Ballet Mécanique' as an example of this approach - and, as I've already said, in my opinion this doesn't give the most inspiring insight into this approach. Similarly, I like the basic idea behind Associational form, in which an idea might be expressed or encrypted (either for audiences to decipher or to create).

I would argue that from the perspective of a viewer, these approaches, as with any other approach to film-making, are only any good if audiences can appreciate their results - and I would use myself and 'Ballet Mécanique' as an example. But then again, I'd be forgetting the most basic principle of experimental film-making - one I agree with - which is to question mainstream form.

One possible criticism of the article is that it follows the approach of film theory, which has a tendency to 'categorise' films of similar themes and/or styles, and in doing so with experimental film, undermines the very ideas it tries to explore. Having said this, the book follows this method throughout, being an introductory book, and aims to be, as it should, neutral and informative.

Hopefully I'm not coming across as being overly critical here - I think I've written more negatively than I've been thinking.