Meshes of the Afternoon
I like film
art. On art museums I definitely seek out the film art section as this for me
is far more engrossing than paintings or sculpturing. Only installation art can
measure up to the fascination I have for film art.
What it is
I am getting out of it I cannot really tell. I am no art expert and my analysis
of what I see is generally not very deep. Instead it is like a feeling or an impression
or most often simply the world being turned upside down that makes me
interested. It can also be hilariously funny, either because the artist induces
a level of humor turning the installation into a prank or because the artist is
so self-indulgent and pretentious that it is just laughable. I am sure the
serious art critic would find the later attitude of mine amateurish, but hey, if
I am having a good time watching the art, is that not a good thing?
Film art is
different from art film. An art film would by me be considered in the same
context as any other film. Is it interesting? What is the storyline, the
acting, the cinematography like? Am I bored or did I love it. Film art does
usually not comply with movie conventions. Cause and action relationships break
down. At face value the film often makes no sense at all and the world it
depicts may be surreal in the extreme. Therefore the way to consider the film
art is as an installation.
All this
rambling about film art leads up to the film du jour: “Meshes of the Afternoon”
by Maya Deren. This is film art of almost epic scale. As I understand it Maya
Deren was to film art what Any Warhol was to pop art. Hugely influential. I
cannot say if this is really the case as in all my ignorance I actually never
heard of her before, but when I watch her pieces (there are 6 on the DVD I got)
I realize how much of later film art points back to this artist and “Meshes of
the Afternoon” in particular. David Lynch is a good example. I would claim that
he could not have made “Mulholland Drive” if “Meshes of the Afternoon” had not
come before. Yet Deren did not invent this branch of film art single handedly.
Certainly I see Bunuel standing in the background, not as a chaotic, giggling
surrealist, but in the way the film media can be used to tell a story using
symbols instead of words.
The first
impression of “Meshes…” is that it is rather pretentious in its absurdity. I am
reminded of “Ghost world” where the art teacher Roberta presents a similar work
called “Mirror, Father, Mirror”. In fact I feel confident that “Mirror, Father,
Mirror” was modeled on “Meshes…”. Even Roberta looks like Maya Deren! I think
that is really funny.
Yet very
soon “Meshes” reveals a lot more content. This is not pointless at all. I will
not claim I understand it all and I will also admit that I learned a bit from
reading about the film in The Book, yet I will hazard an attempt at explaining it or at
least what I got out of it.
First of
all our protagonist falls asleep in her armchair. That tells us that most of
what is going on is happening in her sleep or at least on a subconscious level.
We are witnesses to the mental reflections of this woman.
Secondly we
have a number of objects that seem to carry a meaning.
There is a
flower. I take it to mean happiness. She finds it outside and takes it into the
house. A stranger takes it away, and the woman loses it. A man (her husband)
brings it to her and places it on her bed.
There is a
window. The inside versus the outside. She stands by the window and looks
longingly out. But she is also falling or at least leaning out the window as if
she is being swallowed by the abyss. A life that drowns her?
Then there
is a key and a knife. They replace each other so it seems that the key is the
knife and the knife is the key. She can unlock whatever she is caught in with
the knife. The knife is also in the bed instead of the flower and when she uses
the knife on the man she is breaking a window and looks at the sea. Freedom?
So she must
kill her husband or whatever keeps her tied to her prison? Yet, she is also
looking at a mirror and multiple parts of herself, as if it is not really her
husband that keeps her prisoner but herself. Her rebellious self, wearing cool
shades takes action and kills her passive self, which is ultimately fatal and
her husband finds her dead.
There is a
lot more meaning to be found in the story: the unhooked phone, the stairs, the
key coming out of her mouth and much more. I am sure it all means something and
that is the wonderful thing about this stuff that I keep finding messages in
seemingly pointless elements.
But
basically this is a story about a woman caught in the prison of domestic life.
Her subconscious reflections over her situation leads her in the end to kill
herself.
Much much
earlier on the List we found the film “La Souriante Madame Beudet”, that
claimed a similar message. But where Madame Beudet failed completely on me I am
totally buying into “Meshes of the Afternoon”. It works. I sense her
frustration, her lost dreams and her radical resolution and it carries an
impact not lessened by the dramatic Japanese soundtrack.
I feel quite
certain that a more expert viewer and critic would be able to point out a few
(or many) mistakes in my analysis and I certainly will not claim my reading to
be ultimate truth, but that is the wonderful thing with art that we can project
anything we want into it and it is still right and fine. And if I feel like
laughing at the wildly surrealist pictures then that is also okay.
It's been too long since I've seen this to allow me to comment intelligently, but I definitely wanted to tell you that this is a very nice review. Very thoughtful, very introspective. Thanks for this! When I watch this film again, I'll definitely be reading your review with it!
ReplyDeleteThank you very much! This is a very nice compliment.
DeleteI look forward to read your review when you get to it.
I haven't liked many (or maybe any) of the experimental films in the list, but at least this one did not seem to be trying to deliberately antagonize the viewer like so many others are. For me, that is sort of a compliment for this film. :-)
ReplyDeleteI agree. It bothers me when a lofty artist seems more intent on annoying me than offer me an experience. It is okay that it is cryptic or convoluted, but I do not like to get pissed at.
DeleteI think your explanation is as good as any I've come across. I still don't know what it means, but I know what I think it means, and that's got to be good enough--but I might cop a few ideas from you should I ever need to.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think I would settle for that. That makes it a personal experience and hopefully not a too bad one.
Delete