Come on, anything that's considered outside the mainstream or 'difficult' attracts its fair share of pseuds. What are you meant to do? Pretend not to like something, to avoid association with the posers? You'd probably have to distance yourself from 90% of your record collection if that were true.

Just finished watching this - a pretty impressive effort from Mr Rice. Very dreamlike/trippy, with a touch of erotica too. The soundtrack is vaguely reminiscent to the one employed in Maya Deren's "Meshes Of The Afternoon". Wonder how it would come across on a big screen?

Any record which makes me feel like pretending to like it gets SOLD! I got rid of all Animal Collective, Earth, Lightning Bolt. BORING!

Melly^The soundtrack was by Angus Maclise.

I've never seen it in a cinema but would love to.

Thanks, demon - think this is the separate soundtrack here: http://youtu.be/AU4GL7LCvOk

Interesting to note that this would have preceded MacLise's somewhat brief stint in the Velvet Underground. Didn't yer man end up moving to Kathmandu or somewhere like that?

Yeah, don't know much about him other than that he was meant to be pretty full on as a person, even compared with others in that scene. Isn't Lou Reed rumoured to have kicked him out the Velvets cos of it?

He left the band when they got their first paid series of gigs because he didn't like having to turn up at a certain time and finish to play when they were told to.

his wife has a blog but she didn't update it in a while.
http://www.phantomlyoracula.com/

Haha. It's a wonder how he worked with people like Jack Smith and Ron Rice and anything got done at all. How that scene got it together enough to produce what it did is its own miracle. Imagine having to rely on Jack Smith for anything.

Quoted for troof.

Do you think I should subject myself to Jack Smith's "Flaming Creatures" once more? The one time I saw it (at the late Lux Cinema in Hoxton), I ended up wanting to beat myself over the head with a copy of the Gutenberg Bible. Mind you, we are talking about the same person who dozed off thorugh large chunks of Kenneth Anger's "Lucifer Rising" at the same venue (I think it was the atrocious dubbed soundtrack on the preceding "Rabbit Moon" that finished me off)

BTW, did you know that Stefan used to refer to yer man as Kenneth Angerbore?

Well I love Flaming Creatures but can understand why some people wouldn't. I doubt that it'll exactly grow on you if you're not already a fan. Although if you liked Chumlum, that's pretty much FC in colour, so maybe.

Didn't know Stefan called him that but it doesn't surprise me. He seemed to pit himself against underground film pretty early on. He's definitely more grindhouse than loft-space in that respect. Nothing wrong with that. I've just never seen it as an either/or situation the way he seems to.

Well, blow me down with a feather - it's also on YouTube - http://youtu.be/YrAlBrWpDSw

Have stuck it onto my "to watch" pile on there - will let you know what I make of it 2nd time round.

I'd agree with you on the either/or thing - there's room for both the grindhouse and the arthouse (if you see what I mean) - in fact you could say at times they complement each other (Kuchar Brothers, Curt McDowell, early John Waters, Paul Morrisey's early "Warhol" movies etc).

Stefan managed to make himself pretty unpopular amongst exploitation followers in his Shock Xpress days by putting the boot into various sacred cows - he loathed Troma films (except for "Combat Shock"); thought Jesus Franco was a talentless, blundering hack; took the piss out of Joe D'Amato's output; got enraged by a Ray Dennis Steckler interview (his editorial interjections were hilarious); was bored by Joerg Buttgereit's output; hated 80's horror scream queens (he once said on a letters page that people should get into Klaus Kinski instead of them); and let Alan Jones run amok on various reviews. He did end up running 2 massive pieces on biker movies and drug films though, which I've never seen bettered elsewhere. And he was the only person at the time in the UK who cited Bill Landis and Steve Puchalski as taking exploitation in the States seriously (it's how I discovered Slimetime, Sleazoidd Express and Shock Cinema).

Anyway, I seem to have digressed somewhat, ha ha. My next job is to hunt down some more Brakhage films - I'll have a rummage around on UbuWeb and see what they have.

MELLY - there's a good brakhage collection on dvd. his stuff is not what you wanna watch in a shitty compression. you really gotta be able to see the feathers he glued to the film and all that shit. which is FUCKING GORGEOUS. but ultimately terribly boring. for the reason rob said: it looks great, but only for a second. me i give them 5 minutes max. i get the point after 5 minutes. don't make me sit 2 hours watching at flickering chunks of film. i WILL fall asleep.

PORKY - you're right the old avantgarde from those times is more like video art from today but my question is why it still goes on today if we get the point and nothing is being advanced by it. i mean unless someone makes something truly gorgeous, it's kind of pointless to continue scratching films and painting on it by hand and shit of that sort because it gets old fast. i mean, there are people who are doing fantastic film art today, there's a woman from san francisco, can't remember her name right now, she scratches and paints and overexposes and collages but it's pure fucking magic what she makes-- avant garde by definition must be the vanguard not a repetition of the old and she moves things forward. i'll give you the name when i can remember/find it.

ROB - yes. which is why i said they ignore the TIME dimension. a gorgeous image for a brief time is great. 2 hours sitting there looking at wax melt is not a beautiful experience. i've spent something like 45 minutes looking at 4 or 5 pieces by dutch masters in a museum but it's the fucking dutch masters-- vermeer, de hooch, etc. unless people are making vermeers on the screen, they shouldn't demand such loooong fucking attention. TIME MATTERS IN FILM.

DEMONIO - poor jack smith! i feel bad for the guy. he said he was not a victim, that he was dying for his ideals, and i actually believe him. anyway, i can't stand warhol films either. there was one about a junky…. oy, i can't even fucking remember. i'll poke my eyes with a fork if i have to watch again.

gimme the kuchars instead.

It can be in the right state of mind ;)


Me too! I've practically haunted the Getty.

that's what i meant much earlier, etc. but cheeto got it right-- in the "right state of mind" you just need to look at water dripping. you don't need to spend 3 years pasting feathers to a strip of film. okay maybe you do. for that very reason. therefore should not be called avant-garde but "shit to trip to film". i'll give them that if they call it by the right name.


that shit can induce a trip without drugs. that's what potent art can do. that's what one must demand of art though-- that it be an alternative, not a supplement, to drugs.

but supplements/accessories are okay too. as long as they are correctly designated. "peyote mixtape". okay. i prefer beef jerky to doritos.

Agreed completely, though I must admit, after much consumption over, shit, am I old enough for it to be decades now? ....anyway whenever art or music has that particular effect on me sans substances, I still usually think it possibly just could be me ;)

WOLF OF WALL STREET-- Didn't really like it, but found myself re-watching some good scenes. One prolonged scene in particular is classic. Weird, but I predict Jonah Hill will win an Oscar some time in the next few years.

no, fool, that is wrong. artists have the right to make whatever they want. good art, bad art, it's their business and not yours. what really bugs me is just that it would still be called avant-garde or experimental when it's been a tried and true formula for decades. decades! that's what really bugs me. it's only avant-garde when it breaks new boundaries. okay, so now it's video art or film art or abstract film or whatever. okay. names are important.

i kinda already said that, didn't i? in a way, yes, but after last night's drinking my head is clearer, and i feel less categorical in my stupid judgments.

alright. and now to recent movies.

For what, being the only true successor of Chris Farley as "heavy set guy who smiles too much and so we can't really take him too seriously?" I like the guy, a lot actually, but not exactly Oscar caliber here..

&85^0£ was a good dolphin.