Good job!

Your last posts are especially great! They're a pleasure to read, and you're to be commended for making such insightful comments on a film that's been confusing people for almost 80 years.

Dr. Libby

Post 9

Un Chien Andalou is a film that leaves the viewer confused as to what has taken place. The film offers no story line with disconnected scenes that in no way relate to one another. The meaning is ambiguous leaving the interpretation of the film up to the viewer. The intention of this film seems to shock and confuse people, much like surrealist art. The film made by two surrealists Dali and Brunel captures the essence of the movement in which in represents. It relates to Freud's analysis in his work "On Dreams". Freud believes that we repress things in our minds so as not to revuls ourselves which is present in the obscurity of dream images. When we sleep our unconscious is able to revel itself to us and we are able to see what we are repressing. These thoughts come to us in obscure images so as not to induce repulsion at what are true thoughts are.  It is up to us to interpret these images and gain meaning out of them.

The film acts as a type of dream that we are meant to interpret through the obscure images that are being presented before us. The film shows images that in no way relate to one another and do not correspond with the previous image or scene much like dreams. In this way we are meant to glean our own meaning from the film and figure out what each of these images mean to us.

Un Chien Andalou is a trip and a half, to say the least. With no plot, an ambiguous meaning, and vivid imagery, it is a film that is sure to shock and provoke the audience into an existential conundrum. Freud's essay on dreams has some relevant ideas that can be applied to the film. Freud says that dream images reproduce logical connection by approximation in time and space so even though two corresponding objects may be very different from one another, there is still some "intimate connection" which relates the two. This idea is present in something like the scene where the man is dragging two pieces of wood, two missionaries, and a piano with a dead mule on top of it. Particularly his idea on repression and rejection seems to apply the most to the film.
The intentions of the film was influenced by a motive of shock and revulsion. This revulsion is particularly important to Freud's concept of repression. The obscurity of the dream-image, he believed, was important to prevent the dreamer from becoming to repulsed by his own self. During sleep, the censorship part of our brain becomes less powerful and the unconscious part tends to take advantage of the circumstance by trying to reveal itself. The need for obscuring the image is to prevent exposing those repressed images which Freud believed were universal. Therefore, these repressed thoughts and feelings are represented by metaphors and similes, things which are intended for interpretation. These metaphors are objects which relate to the objects around it. First we draw material for our dreams from recollections from our waking lives, specifically those which have made an impression on our life (excitement, trauma, etc). The ideas which are present in our dreams are repetitions of a theme. The collected material goes through a process of condensation and displacement. The recollections become condensed into fragmentations of images, speeches, or thoughts which effectively act as a representation for one idea. The act of displacement puts the images used for the metaphor through a selective process "in favor of those portions of it which are the most appropriate for the construction of situations". The images are then appropriately juxtaposed with other images that are associated with the same idea.
Comparing Un Chien Andalou to these dreams theories becomes difficult because of the intentions and motivations. Bunuel and Dali intentionally juxtaposed irrational images strictly to defy reason. One can interpret the film loosely based off of possible conjectures of what each image is supposed to represent. The problem I have with comparing dreams to the films is that a dream still pulls things from real life and implies a personal undercurrent between them. Dreams, in this way, are entirely personal things which reveal our unconscious selves. The filmmakers take away that relevance and instead insist that the viewer/interpreter comes up with it themselves. This does not create a substantial analysis for the individual because it is not based on their personal psyche's.
The film acceptably imitates a dream sequence but lacks the key element that gives the dream sequence any value: real, personal meaning. Therefore, the film can only succeed in making the viewer uncomfortable and this could be for any number of reasons. The objects are so general they leave themselves wide open for interpretation, but any interpretation will be automatically superficial because there is no depth to the film. The sequences which succeed in making the audience uncomfortable will most likely appeal to bad taste than to psychological repressions.
All in all the film is an amusing experiment and a fantastic short film with incredible imagery, but that is all it gets. This is a problem I get with a lot of Dali's work. It may be my own ignorance, but I feel like he is more concerned with superficial elements than of depth of meaning. The film rely's on superficial forms of repression and is met with superficial anxieties. We cringe at the slashing of the eyeball because we think about what it would feel like to have our eyeballs slashed and not, as Freud suggests, because it relates to some repressed memory or childhood anxiety.
I did not get particularly uncomfortable by this film for that very reason. I thought it was fun to try and interpret the various images and make up some meaning as to how they related, but I was not confronted by any anxieties or frustrations as a result of the images. This did not make me question my identity, as a true dream would. It is a successful imitation of the dream world but an ineffective reflection

Sigmund Freud's 'On Dreams' is a clear demonstration of the surrealist world presented in Un Chien Andalou. "The physical material of the dream-thoughts habitually includes recollections of impressive experiences" (Freud, 21). I would say this quote summarizes the concept of this film altogether. For a 1929 film, Un Chien Andalou features some creepy images that are so graphic they seem real. More interesting enough, the theme of desire is easily expressed in the film and this is where I would mainly like to focus. These examples of desire are used through displacement, condensation, and pictorial images.

Sigmund Freud explains the need or urge of a human in real life and the film Un Chien Andalou provides a realistic feeling but is clearly in a surrealist world. However, this idea of displacement is easy to spot in the short, 16 minute film. A few examples of urge can be explained such as the man who stares at the woman frequently seen in the film. He looks her down with those bold, hawk eyes and slowly moves toward her. She seems frightened at first with a face that reads confusion. He begins to walk even closer to her and attempts to grab her breasts in a very disturbing manner. His intention to grab her sexually is an urge, but the surrealist aspect begins to take affect as she resists at first, but then her facial expression implies that she is not disgusted, but interested. This face she has reads that she is also interested and has an urge for this rather creepy man to continue these disgusting antics.

Condensation in the mind of Freud is the many emotions or feelings condensed into one major image. In this case, the entire film is an example of condensation as there is obviously no real plot, but many different short stories without words condensed into an entire 16 minute film. Very close to the opening of the film the moon is shown to demonstrate a darkness of the film. This is immediately followed by the desire concept as a man holds a razor and proceeds to slit a woman’s eye ball with personal pleasure as she does not resist and does not show pleasure, but just lets it happen. She doesn’t seem displeased and this disturbing scene is followed by another odd clip with no relation whatsoever to the infamous eye ball scene. The entire film is condensed with odd images and Freud is noting that we don’t know why or how these dreams are related but they simply follow one another. In my opinion, dreams are surreal just as this film and none of our dreams seem to be related to one following another.

I personally can have a good or bad day that is then brought back into my dreams. Hopefully this is not weird and happens to everyone, but the importance is this is the pictorial dream concept that Freud writes about. The other night I watched a basketball game on television in which I had an urge to play myself. Later this exact night my dreams led me to play basketball with a random friend I had not seen in forever. I can’t explain the friend but this game was a desire I had that was followed in my dream. In Un Chien Andalou, the woman looks out her window and sees a man on his bike. She makes a face that seems questionable in terms of what she prefers. Immediately following the close up on her face, the man crashes on his bicycle. Her face begins to turn into a smile as this dream like feeling demonstrated her emotion of desire. Un Chien Andalou is a film that can take these dream like feelings of surrealism and relate them to a condensed reality that is similar to a dream world. Freud’s concept of dream like feelings relate very much to the film.

Post 9

Un Chien Andalou presents its viewers with a disconcerting take on the traditional format of a film. It disconnects itself from any successive coherent narrative arrangement, with no links between successive scenes. It leaves the opportunity for any interpretation to be drawn from the images shown and every single scene seems to be random and unconcerned with any other. Throughout the film, Bunuel, the director, repeats images in situations where they shouldn't necessarily be added, or don't really make sense, which adds to the already confusing undertone of the film and enhances the off-putting nature inherent in the film. Bunuel worked with Dali on this film, both employing a Surrealist take on film-making with a psychoanalytical undertone brought on by Freud's theories, which the Surrealists incorporated in their ideology of their art forms. The Surrealists were extremely interested in the unconscious as a way to escape reality and subvert the limitations imposed on people by a rational, civilized world where the conscious realm of the mind rules. The surrealists favored Freud's theory of dreams, the unconscious state, the conscious state, the Id, the ego, and the super-ego, incorporating facets of his theories into their own works. Freud postulated a sharp divide between reality and dreams with his concecpts of condensation and displacement, which were both widely used in surrealism. Freud studied dreams for uncovering problems brought on during the awakened state. He understood dream reality to be a fragmented story with many levels and perspectives of interpretation, and this is showcased in Un Chien Andalou on a number of levels. The film intentionally distorts reality but establishes a picture that is mostly realistic in its deliverance. It blurs the distinction between the reality and the dream, making the viewer very confused as to what exactly is going on and how to make sense of these fragmented images that are seemingly incompatible in the sense of a rational narrative. Bunuel conveys surreal images, projecting scenes that are made up of both external experiences and inner life experiences, which are reminiscent of a dream-like state. The opening scene in the film perfectly exemplifies this fusion between Freud's ideas regarding dreams and life functioning in an altered, dream-like state of unconsciousness, with the moon in the sky being quickly replaced by a close-up, disturbing shot of an eyeball being sliced. This automatically sets the viewer up for what they are to expect through the rest of the 17-minute film, a combination of unrelated images repeated throughout the film, which have no apparent meaning or representative substance. The eye ball cutting sequence which opens the film produces a state of free association for the viewer, allowing the viewer to feel a number of things regarding the images placed before them. The viewer is transported into a dream-like state of mind where there is no real explanation for what they are seeing, just a random selection of images and experiences that they can draw multiple interpretations from. 

The characters and props make the film even more of a confusing dream-like experience, with the irrational montage, which facilitates the negation of reality, forcing the viewer to rely on emotion and the impact of the unconscious to carry them through the rest of the film. The viewer has to negotiate with the unconsciousness in order to make sense of the images placed before them. The young man in the film seems to be fighting his own unconscious urges for the young woman as he strains against the combined weight of a piano, a donkey, and two priests, which can be viewed as a representation of his own personal struggles with reality and the world outside as well as his struggles with his unconscious state of mind and his super-ego. 

Post 9 Un chien Andalou

Un Chien Andalou, directed by Luis Buñuel, is a very interesting and bizarre short film. This was my second time watching it and it still continues to confuse and shock me. Both times I have watched this film I have felt a feeling of anxiety and perplexity. We talked about in class how we felt the film is meant to evoke certain emotions from the viewer and not necessarily make sense. If this is true, then the film is excellent because I did have strong reactions to some of the images displayed, such as the slicing of the eye, the dragging of the dead bodies behind the piano and the hand being poked by a stick on the floor. The main reason why I really enjoy this film is because I love Salvador Dali’s work. I find it very unique and creative. The fact that Dali helped with this film, and some imagery from his paintings such as the ants and the reference to time appears in the film makes watching Un Chien Andalou, fun for me.

Reading Sigmund Freud’s ‘On Dreams’ was very interesting, because a lot of connections can be made to Un Chien Andalou, because of the films dream like sequences. Sigmund Freud said, “The content of dreams, however, does not consist entirely of situations, but also includes disconnected fragments of visual images, speeches and even bits of unmodified thoughts.” 21 This instantly made me think of the film because of how the film does not consist of shots put together to create one cohesive story. This film contains “disconnected fragments of visual images, speeches and bits of unmodified thoughts.” It almost works like a collage, a mix of completely different thoughts and ideas.


Displacement-Freud’s idea of displacement is that if the dreamer has a real life urge or want, this thing that the dreamer wishes for can appear in a different form in a dream. For example, if I was very mad with someone and wanted to do something bad to him or her, I might have a dream that something bad occurs to the person. In my dream, I physically didn’t have anything to do with that person having bad luck. That desire or want is covered up and disguised as a random happening. In the film, there is a lot of images having to do with desire. The one example I thought of that reminded me of displacement was when the main man in the film starts touching the main woman. He is grabbing her breasts and drools in delight. His emotions show that he wishes he was touching her naked body, but only gets to touch over the clothes. The viewer of the film is shown nudity but in reality, he does not get to see this. This reminded me of displacement because his desires are covered up.


Condensation-Freud’s idea of condensation is when the dreamer hides an urge or emotion by condensing it into a short dream image. Most of the time we do not know why these images are condensed because we cannot “discover or recognize the dream-thoughts in the dream content, unless we understand the reason for their distortion.” What came to mind were the films short flashes of images. I thought of the cutting of the eye segment and the image of the moth, all which are very short and seem to be randomly placed. Also, the whole film can be seen as an example of condensation. We cannot understand what is really going on because all the images and the plot are condensed. We only see short segments places together, making it hard to figure out what it all means.


Dreams as pictorial situations-Freud said that dreams consist of pictorial situations. Dreams take our thoughts and emotions and put them into images and or situations. He also states that many times these pictorial situations show us our desires. Un Chien Andalou, as we discussed in class, has a lot to do with human desire. The main man desires to be with the main woman. He attacks her and even drags a piano across the room to get what he wants. When the main woman leaves the man in the room, she walks on to the beach. There is another man whom she clearly desires, as she tries to embrace him with a kiss. Perhaps, all of these images in the film show the woman what she desires and what she does not.

I found it very interesting when we tried to analyze the film in class. Most everyone was confused, trying to make every image mean something to us. As humans, we feel the need to make everything make sense. We try to decode things and make them have meaning. This is just like dreams. We have dream books and dream interpreters who can tell us what the images we saw in our sleep symbolize. With the film, however, I believe that we are not meant to decipher the meaning in every sequence. I believe the film is just about placing images that evoke emotion together in one short movie. It is about the art of the shots, not what they mean.

un chien andalou

In Freud’s theory of dreams, he uses four main ways in which the content of one’s dreams and latent thought can be transformed. In the film Un Chien Andalou, the viewer is confronted with a series of images which are difficult to decipher and put into the context of a larger meaning. In Freud’s discussion of dreams and the transformation of latent thought into conscious thought he uses the terms of Condensation, Displacement, and Symbolism. Condensation is defined as two or more latent thought which are combined to create one “pictorial situation” or dream. As viewers we are unable to “discover or recognize the dream-thoughts in the dream-content, unless we understand the reason for their distortion.” In Un Chien Andalou, the viewer is constantly confronted with images, which are un realistic and could potentially be the latent thoughts of the directors. There are many scenes, which are extremely unclear and chaotic, which may reflect the dream or latent thoughts of the directors/writers. Because dreams reflect the unconscious thought process, it is impractical to attempt to decipher the meaning of these disordered visions. The scene with Dali and Bunuel dragging a piano with two dead mules on it dressed as religious figures. This scene addresses this idea of the combination of different unrelated imagery to create one “pictorial situation” through the process of Condensation. Throughout the film the narrative is filled with similar scenes where the process of Condensation creates a “manifest dream image” where the viewer is forced to tackle with multiple images which have little or no logical relation to one another. Freud’s idea of displacement helps to describe the human mind in terms of latent thought and emotional desire. Un Chien Andalou, although a film with an illogical narrative, is filled with issues of human desire. Freud’s idea of displacement discusses the idea of humans’ latent thought not directly imposing their emotional desires on other human beings but rather focusing on an unrelated object. Although, human desire between the male and female characters in Un Chien Andalou, is prevalent throughout he film the desire is not always manifested towards the other figure. For example, the female figure becomes engrossed in a box filled with male clothing. After reading about Freud’s idea of Displacement I was reminded on his psychoanalysis theory of the fetish, and found obvious similarities between the two. The hand is an important object in the film, which many of the figures focus on, perhaps to replace their desires of another human in the form of a fetish.
Freud was also very interested in the object or “dream symbol” which replaces sexual desires. In Un Chien Andalou, the image of a box is repeated throughout the narrative. According to Freud, the box symbolizes female genitalia and desire. The film refers a lot to the idea of the unattainable woman, and the obstacles that men have to go through to have sexual relations with a female. In the case of the film the box may become a fetish object resulting from the frustration that the male feels when he is unable to have the female figure.
“It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that these dream-facades are nothing other than mistaken somewhat arbitrary revisions of dream-content by the conscious agency of mental life.” Freud suggests that the latent thoughts and visions that create the pictorial situations of our dreams are often derived from unconscious desire. As stated earlier it is clear that Un Chien Andalou is expressing human desire, but because these desires are manifested in such bizarre, unconventional manners they may reflect the dreams of the characters. After reading Freud’s “On Dreams” and reflecting on the film I began to contemplate if the film is a depiction of a dream void of any conscious thought or desire. I began to wonder if the desire between the characters’ is conscious, but the manner in which they approach each other reflects their latent desires, which they have explored in their dream visions. Dreams and human latent thought are personal experiences, which are typically not shared. Therefore when the viewer is confronted with these visions although they may have similar thoughts they are bemused by the visions because they are experiencing them in a situation where they are “conscious”.

Un Chien Andalou--Post 9

Discuss some ways in which Un Chien Andalou can be understood in terms of Freud's theory of dreams, especially his analysis of displacement, condensation, and dreams as "pictorial situations."

DUE SATURDAY, APRIL 26

Post 8

Belly of an Architect proposes a new idea regarding artistic creation, most notably in its use of the human body and anatomy as the catalyst for this creative surge in the artist. From the very beginning of the film, the audience is confronted with the theme of the belly, with the first scene showing Kracklite, the films protagonist, engaging in a sexual act aboard a train, with his bulbous belly sticking out, blocking his wife, Louisa, and her body from the camera. This trip marks the birth of both Kracklite's project and his heir (which we find out about later on in the film), as he consummates his relationship with his wife as he enters into Italy, where he will be for nine months working on this projecting honoring the relatively forgotten life of Boullee. Additionally, throughout the film, the audience is faced with numerous images of belly-shaped objects, architecture, and the belly itself. The cake at the dinner honoring Boullee is shaped like a dome or belly. It is shown before it is cut and then when the wife cuts into it, and then eventually the camera exposes the interior of the cake, eaten and torn apart with the one pound note burning inside of it. These images work as a means of representing Kracklite's creativity, as well as his tumultuous relationship with his wife who metaphorically castrates him throughout the film. The belly imagery can be seen as a metaphor for Kracklite's creativity, which is represented through his lifelong project honoring Boullee's architecture, which can in turn be seen as Kracklite's "baby." 

While in Rome, Kracklite becomes increasingly obsessed with his idol, Boullee, as well as by architecture and by his own insides, which begin to become a problem for him as soon as he arrives. Kracklite becomes increasingly sick throughout the course of the film, eventually resulting in a cancerous cell forming in his stomach, which plagues his character throughout his time in Italy. Kracklite's physical and social decline coincide with his hero's own decline, Boullee, who did not receive critical acclaim or notoriety until much after his death, not until the 20th century. Kracklite becomes obsessed with shapes and contents of both architecture and anatomy, of bellies in sculptures, photographs, and paintings, bringing him to obsessively photocopy larger and larger images of the belly of a particular sculpture, which he then uses as a diagram to draw out his own troublesome areas of his own stomach. He becomes obsessed with historical figures of the past, such as the Emperor Hadrian and other members of ancient Roman culture. His infatuation with figures of the past leads Kracklite to engage in paranoid episodes where he screams at his wife savagely and accuses her of trying to poison him. He connects himself with these heroic figures throughout the film and even takes on a Christ-like martyr role toward the end of the film. 

The beginning of the film where Kracklite and his wife conceiving a child is reinforced with the last scene which closes the film with the opening of Kracklite's exhibition, his "baby," and the actual birth of his child. This theme of conception plays an underlying role throughout the film with imagery supporting it on numerous occassions. As the exhibition honoring Boullee is Kracklite's baby, and as Kracklite's wife becomes pregnant, everything becomes internalized for the American architect, to the point of producing physical defects in his own stomach. Recurring images of conception are seen, such as the scene in which Kracklite and Flavia seduce each other, as she pulls him behind a white sheet, with her shadow mimicking that of a small little boy's, and pulls him in with her by a very long red ribbon placed around his neck. This is reminiscent of an umbilical chord as she pulls him in by the string into the shadow of the white sheet. Additionally, Kracklite's physical decline is a metaphor for his own struggles to fulfill Boullee's legacy and find his own recognition as an American architect thriving in Italy, the place in which Boullee failed.

Additionally, Greenaway uses technical framing to visually deliver the message of the film. He uses deliberate framing of architectural forms such as Roman columns and vertical lines as well as recurring shots of symbolically clean domes, flat white surfaces, and rigid statues that are overwhelmingly large compared to the figures. The immense physicality of Kracklite is squandered by the sheer size of the columns, statues, and architectural forms that envelope him throughout the film. This technique works to visually rectify the relationship between the inner passion and workings of the creative mind, which become huge as they materializes in real life, and far outlive the creators. Kracklite begins seeing himself as an extension of the architecture and sees Boullee's architecture as the man himself, even going as far as to write postcards to the dead architect, speaking to him as if he were still alive and they had encountered each other just that day. 

Bell of an Architect

The name of the game in this film is Obsession. Obsession is portrayed as the corrupting element in these characters lives. Everyone seems to obsess over something. There is a photographer (voyeur) who obsess' about image, an italian chauvanist who obsess' over his genius, a wife who obsess' over pregnancy, and an architect who obsess' over the life of his under-appreciated idol. But these characters also fall into two different categories. The classical/conservative category and the neoclassical/progressive category. In this case the Italian characters figure into the classical/conservative category because of their association with the history of Italy and their snobbish disrespect for kracklites ideas. Kracklite and his wife, on the other hand, fit into the progressive realm of wanting to go forward rather than remaining stagnant, forward into, respectively, a family life and a new form of architecture.
Obsession has a way of interfering in the plans of our protagonist however and everything gets sabotaged. The Italian fascists win. I think the pregnancy was supposed to be the element of redemption for kracklite. His wife revealed to him of the pregnancy before the affair intensified giving him the opportunity to save his relationship and possibly his self. Instead of being saved, he allows his obsession to take priority and blind him to his impending doom. His obsession over Boullee created this paranoia and distrust of everyone around him, alienating him further.
The Directors artistic influence in the film is in his shot composition and the films symbolism. Most of the shots were framed through something like a window or a door frame giving an even more intense voyeuristic feeling, possibly alluding back to the medium of film. We sit and watch a story in the frame of a screen and the camera watches the characters through architectural frames. I also noticed a significant amount of symmetry in the composition. Often times you could draw a line right down the center and and compare the two sides to find they were reverse images. There was also a shot that reminded he a lot of the last supper where the characters are sitting around a square table facing each other (interesting when compared to the round table of King arthur). It was almost a foreboding scene where Kracklite sat across from his wife, both characters surrounded on either side by foreigners. This was one of the those subtle, ambiguous symbolic references that is totally open to interpretation. Because it is not a direct graphic match to the last supper painting, it may or may not actually be an homage, but considering the other religious elements (the least of which being set in Rome, Italy) its symbolism seems likely.
The interesting thing about the setting is that it has nothing to do with Boullee's life. He never left France, so there is a question as to why is it Italy that this party is happening in and not France. I believe there are two reasons. First, Italy was the source of Boullee's foundation. In schools he studied classical and neo-classical architecture which was rooted in Rome, Italy. It was founded during the Baroque/Romantic perod which was primarily influenced by religion. The other reason the film was set in Italy is because of the intentional religious symbolism. At the end of class, one of the major topics we talked about was the religious themes of the film. By creating these subtle, ambiguous religious allusions the director has allowed for an open ended interpretation on classical themes. His suicide creates a great deal of controversy and ambiguity confusing his roles as it relates to symbolism. Is he Christ dying for the sins of others? If he is, then who is in his wife's womb? If she is the "virgin" Mary then he would be God. If he were God, then do we interpret his suicide as God's death or is he killing himself to be reborn in his son confirming the ideology that Christ was God incarnate? The depth of symbolism allows for the opportunity to read very deeply into the film. There is a much deeper interpretation that can be made relating Boullee's work and preferred shape to religion, and even the trinity between Kracklite, Boullee, and a religious figure. Is Kracklite Boullee reincarnate who is an architectural god about the be reincarnated in Kracklite's son? All of these interpretations require a thorough understanding of the work of Boullee as well as the doctrine of the church, both of which I am not prepared to handle.
I think that the topic of artistic creation is linked to obsession. Considering all of the films we've watched so far, Every artist has become deeply obsessed with their own work in one way or another. This obsession blinds them to the world around them and allows them to only see their work and their ideas taking shape. Kracklite falls victim to this artistic perrogative and forfeits his life because of it. He becomes so obsessed with bringing the artist to life again that he practically beckons Boullee's spirit to take over his body. I think the scene of Kracklite photocopying the belly with the green light flashing is not about envy. It is hard to interpret this scene though because there is no juxtaposition of the color green. There is plenty of red, black, and white symbolism (in fact you can't throw a rock and miss it), but there is almost no green except in scenes that include grass. There is most definitely something haunting about the flashing green though. I truly believe it is in that moment that Kracklite succumbs to Boullee's spirit.
As for creation and gender I can't easily identify it. Kracklite nurtures a cancerous tumor in his belly the same way his wife nurtures a fetus in hers. One is corrupting, the other is redeeming. If gender is to be identified with creation, it must also be identified with destruction as its complement. The only destruction that occurs in the film is through obsession, breaking down the relationships of the characters. The only moment of creation is in the train at the beginning. After there it doesn't seem as though there is any real creation. The formation of the exhibition is constantly derailed and can not get itself together until one of the two men is removed from the project. The conundrum of the gender identity occurs through the context of the characters. There are two women and two men. Kracklite and his wife dismiss their relationship in favor a relationship with the italian characters. His wife has an affair with a self-absorbed Italian chauvanist who isn't particularly trustworthy and behaves like a juvenile. Kracklite dismiss' his relationship with his wife in favor of the Italian photographer who is a total stoic but smarter than all of the other characters. She even protects Kracklite by not including film in her camera when they make love. This makes the moral dilemma very convoluted and obscures the interpretation of the ending because no one is particularly innocent and it is unclear as to who is the real victim. Certainly Kracklite takes the limelight as the victim by losing his life's work and his wife, but to what extent did he do it to himself?

Belly of an Architect

Belly of an Architect is an interesting film as it depicts a new form of inspiration that we have not seen in any of the other films, the physicality of the human body. Although, Kracklite is a fictional character he embodies many of the characteristics of Etienne Boulee through his extreme admiration, idolization and “relationship” with the architect. The film does not focus on original thought, but rather focuses on the inspiration from past works and artists to fuel the creative process. The film also focuses more on failure than success, as Boulee himself planned several buildings, which were too grandiose to actually construct in his lifetime. Kracklite, reflects the shortcomings of Boulee through his physical predicament and failure to finish the planning for the exhibition. The film mainly narrows in on Boulee’s drawings of the building, which was to honor Sir Isaac Newton. The sphere shape of the building draws in an interesting parallel between the “belly” of Kracklite and Boulee’s design. Kraklite is obsessed with his stomach and uses the image of Augustus, who was an important inspiration in Boulee’s work, to feed his obsession with both Boulee and his stomach. Boulee was forgotten for most of the 20th century and Kracklite wanted to bring his architecture back to life through his exhibition. Similar, to films such as Camille Claudel an artist is using hi power to promote another artist as many of the mentors of female artists did.
After watching several films, which are based on female artists it was interesting to see the juxtaposition with a film about a male artist. Because the film is about an architect, which is traditionally a male profession naturally the film focused on the occupation of the male and the males’ role in society. The film also focused a lot on male domination over other males and female characters in the film. The Italians who are involved in preparing the exhibition recognize and obsess over the fact that Kracklite is married to a younger woman. The “woman” Kracklite’s wife is also immediately recognized as an object for the men. She in turn ends up impregnated by Kracklite, depicting his male abilities to reproduce. While pregnant Mrs. Kracklite becomes involved with her husbands “partner” who uses her admiration as fuel to take over and dominate in the preparations of the exhibition. In the film Kracklite believed that his wife, as the wife of the famous historical figure Augustus did was trying to poison him. This unlike other aspects of the narrative is a contrast to the typical construction of the male artists biopic as it shows the power of the woman over the male artist.
The setting of the film in Rome also plays an important role in the film. The Kracklites and the others involved in preparing the exhibition have several dinners in front of such buildings as the Pantheon. Displaying ancient buildings, which have inspired architecture around the world. The setting parallels the idea of inspiration that the film is depicting through Kracklite and his “relationship” with Boulee. Visually the location of Rome makes the film more artistic and aesthetically pleasing to the viewer. If the film were filmed somewhere in the United States it would not have the same artistic appeal.
Although, “Belly of an Architect” is a fictional film it has a similar construct to biopic films of artists. It depicts the “tragic” life of an architect (Kracklite) and focuses on his personal life rather than his life’s work. As in “Artemisia” and “Frida”, the focus is not on the creative genius of the artist and the inspirational work they produced but rather on their personal lives and tragic deaths. Because Kracklite is not an actual architect it is clear why the narrative of the film does not include any of his personal work. But, because the work is not included the film is commenting on artists’ biopics, it is unclear whether or not this is intentional or an unconscious decision of the director/writer. After, watching the film I am unsure whether or not the intention of the film was to highlight Etienne Boulee or any architect could have been chosen and the importance was on the effect of a historical artist on a present day artist? Although, the name Etienne Boulee is very present in the film and images of his architectural plans are shown I do not feel as though I have a full understanding of his life’s work and influence and think that this information was meant to be secondary.

post 9

Belly of an Architect is easily one of the most "out there" films screened in our class thus far. The director creates a main character whose art leads to his madness. As Stourley Kracklite begins to work on his life long dream of exhibiting his favorite artist Boullee in Rome, we the audience start to look at him as a man losing his mind.

The artistic creation of this film mainly directs the audience to focus on the relationship between Kracklite and his new exhibit in honor of Boullee. Boullee is pretty much immediately introduced in the second scene of the movie, explaining that Stourley loves his creative, yet classic style and through Stourley's description, we can understand this deceased architect would be Kracklite's idol. However, Kracklite looks at this new exhibit as his own personal child. He planned the construction of the entire presentation and had, prior to arriving in Italy, spent many years planning what would be done.

As the film progresses, Kracklite becomes more of a defensive artist with very little open minded opinions as any suggestions or changes made seem to result in Stourley's anger and constant aggression. At this point in the film, I was expecting his love life to unfold and move to Caspasian. Anyway, suggestions concerning the lighting were made and Stourley quickly jumped to his angry side. We, the audience begin to look at the reality of how one reacts when his/her personal life long exhibit is being changed. Of course he will react badly, but at times, he begins to be such a target in the movie that the film is simply staged with a lack of realism in terms of what really goes on with these exhibit. A shot in the film show's a few relatives of Caspasian and Stourley in the same room. Shot from a long angle, the camera stays on the same place and the camera begins to move away as we listen to Caspasian's relatives call Stourley out for gradually losing his wife. Immediately, Kracklite punches the relative on the right. This predictable reaction following the blatant instigations of Caspasian's family turn this movie into nothing more than a written film with a predictable plot involving a man losing his wife in a gloomy, outsider world where the victim (Kracklite) can do nothing to stand up for himself besides demonstrating physical aggression. His artistic creation is what he thrives on and these character's taking away his genius right in front of him would bring out the anger in not only Stourley, but any architect for that matter. This could be a reason I did not enjoy the film because it seemed too predictable for Hollywood/Italian cinema.

Creation according to gender is no mystery in this film. Obviously everyone on this blog site will mention Mrs. Kracklite's unfaithful ways and how her baby gradually becomes Caspasian's baby. The movie moves along with more bad news for Stourley as he has no choice in terms of what will be the result of his child's future. He even tries to take Mrs. Kracklite (cheating piece of crap) to America in order for the baby to not be born outside of his home country. As Stourley realizes his baby will not really be his, he falls into even more depression and continues to write sad post cards to a man (Boullee his idol) who has been dead for 200 years. However, a serious issue came to my notice. Stourley is so concentrated on his exhibit that not only does he never notice the first four months of her pregnancy, but he doesn't seem to talk about his future son for more than a few lines. The plot leans the audience's attention on Caspasian's ruthless antics and how Stourley will react.

In terms of what the past does to this man is rather weird and obscure to say the least. He writes letters to the exhibit's based legend Boullee. Not only does he write letters, he gets into detail and writes as if he is really having a conversation with a deceased artist. He is losing his mind attempting to live in the past and seems to neglect his own future family. This movie just seemed to be a little bit off and doesn't really resemble a film that can be looked upon as a director's choice. There are some good long shots and key lighting, featuring unique camera work from in front of the Panteon in which the director has the camera follow Stourley around, yet still leaving the legendary dome building in the background for us to see. We are supposed to acknowledge Stourley looks up to people who create these buildings and that such artistic genius of others inspired a crazy architect who finishes the film with his own suicide.

Post 9

The film, Belly of an Architect, was not my favorite film we have watched this year in class, but it was, however, entertaining. I found that the film, like Pollock, Frida, Basquiat, and Camille Claudel, shows another example how genius can transform into sickness or madness. Because this film is about a make believe architect, Stourley Kracklite, the director plays into the stereotype of the “crazy artist.” After the reading and the movies we have seen about Artist’s real lives, I have learned that this stereotype is not far fetched after all.

Artistic Creation: This film promotes ideas about artistic creation in many ways. The main character, Stourley Kracklite, is an architect who admires the famous French architect Boullée. He travels to Rome to lead the creation of an art exhibit and installation in honor of Boullée. This exhibit is his baby. He is the one who has started the planning for years and his passion for Boullée’s work makes him extremely attached to the creation of this exhibit. Like a mother, he takes care of the exhibit, making sure nothing goes wrong and everything is done exactly the way it should be. His role as an artist is to make a perfected and flawless creation. When one of the other men working on the exhibit, Caspasian, wants to do a kitschy light show for the exhibit, Kracklite becomes extremely defensive. He doesn’t want anyone interfering, especially if he doesn’t agree with what they want to contribute. This film shows that when an artist has a vision or a creation, they put their all into it. It consumes them and takes over their life. The exhibit and thoughts of Boullée devoured him, driving away his wife and leading to his ultimate demise. He becomes sick with cancer, and the stress of the project isn’t helping his ailment. As his health decreases, other men working on the instillation decide that Kracklite is too sick to continue his work. They take his baby away from him, which destroys him. He ends of committing suicide the night the exhibit opens, and he does it at the exhibit. Just like a mother being taken away from their child, he can’t live with the separation.

Creation According to Gender: While Kracklite is working on his “baby”; his wife Louisa is pregnant with his child. Kracklite does not even notice that she is pregnant. He is too consumed in his own work. The film shows the man as a creator and the female of creator of life. They say that with every birth, comes a death. The film shows this by having Kracklite commit suicide while Louis is giving birth.

The influence of the past in the present: Kracklite is extremely influenced by the past. His role model Boullée, is dead and yet Kracklite let’s this architect affect and control his present. He becomes too obsessed with this deceased architect that he begins to write letters to him. He asks Boullée if his life was similar to what he is going through in present day. He shares his thoughts and feelings with Boullée as if he was a friend. The problem with looking to the past is Kracklite forgets to live in the present.

Post 8

Belly of an Architect has been my least favorite of all the movies we have watched so far. It also is one of the oddest films I have ever seen. The film shot by the artist Peter Greenaway follows the slow mental breakdown of the films protagonist Stourley Kracklite while he works to fulfill his long time dream of staging an exhibition dedicated to his idol, Etienne-Louis Boullee. The film shows how the genius of an artists can be turned into a slow and debilitating sickness that consumes their lives and hinders their ability to work. The film also focuses on the creation of things, weather it be life or the exhibit they both intertwine to show the creation of an artist.
The Boullee exhibit has been Kracklite's baby for almost 10 years. Married to his wife for 7 of them she has had to endure his constant obsession with the creation of his monument to his hero. He is so caught up in his"baby" that he does not realize that he has created a real baby with his wife for many months. He treats his exhibit with more importance than his wife and ultimately drives her into the hands of another man. It shows that his obsession with his exhibit takes any precedence over the other things it in his life. It shows the side of artistic creation, in which the artist becomes so obsessed with his work that he is unable to see anything else. This is often how parents of new born baby's act, which parallels his own life and his seemly disinterest in his own physical creation with his wife. When he becomes to sick to finish his vision and his exhibit is taken away from him, he can not live with not seeing it completed in they way that he envisioned, so the moment that they are about to open it, he kills himself and it is also at that moment that his baby is born. This lends to the idea that he also realizing that his baby will never be fully his, since his wife is cheating on him, he will never be able to realize his vision or creation of what his child would be. When he realizes that he has stomach cancer and will never be able to realize any of his creations to the fullest that is when he decides to kill himself and become a martyr for his creation.
The creation of his two "baby's" is also gender specific. It his is wife who is creating the being that will be able to carry on his genes and his presence in the world, and it is he who is creating something that will carry on the presence of a man that had been dead for around 200 years. Neither will ever be realized to the extent that he wanted them to be, much like Boullee who never finished most of his work. Neither his wife nor he get the choice to have the ability to crate something in the way that he would have wanted them to be. He is so obsessed with bringing past creations to life that he essentially begins to live in the past and pays no mind to the fact that his future is being created as well. He starts writing letters to his dead idol and becoming completely immersed in his past life. It all leads to his eventual unraveling and final decision to kill himself. Personally, I believe that this film is a tad off and a bit melodramatic.

Post 8

Discuss Belly of an Architect in terms of how the film proposes ideas about artistic creation, creation in general, creation according to gender, the role of the artist, and the influence of the past in the present.

DUE SATURDAY, APRIL 19

Post 4

Comic books are great; comic book films, not so much. Documentaries are great; documentaries about specific people, not always. American Splendor does much to alter these stereotypes, telling an entertaining story, and displaying the intertexuality within the film medium.

Post 7

“Mainstream films that foreground art, as well as most that background it, induce a rather curious tension, as the reflexive presence of art threatens the seductive flow of the fictional world with a spasm of viewer self-consciousness. This is why we refer to such works as reflexive: it is as though a mirror had been held up to the beholder. The work of art en abyme reminds the viewer that she is viewing. It is interesting, then, to consider what is at stake in such representation.” (Fellman 28)

When dealing with stories of real individuals, how much responsibility do you have to telling their story as accurately as possible? It is with this question that I began my last response, and it feels appropriate to return to this question in response to the Susan Fellman reading. Artistic liberty appears to be a paradigm for true expression. It is difficult to create without freedom. Artists fight fervently to retain some semblance of freedom, and even within a particular genre they are expected and encouraged to take a model and make it their own. So, it would appear likely that this same philosophy would follow cinematic art. Filmmakers often fight studios and producers to have their vision fully realized. While in my last response I displayed frustration at the skewering of Artemisia’s life in Artemisia, Fellman’s piece altered my opinion a bit. It put back into place my perspective of film as an art form. And as an art form, I feel obliged to honor it with the same reverence as any other art form. Though Artemisia does take great liberties with the history of the artist, the filmmaker should reserve the fashion whatever tale she wishes. So long as she is not peddling the film as an absolute factual account (which is not the same as calling something based on a true story) she has maintained her artistic integrity. The basic function of film, like any other art form, is to tell a story. Agnes Merlet’s film tells a story, and though it is not the story the audience expects, it is not necessarily a bad one. It is an interpretation, and it is critical that the viewer understands it as such. As stated earlier, we as consumers of art must also be careful to view film with the same critical eye as any other art form. Picasso’s Guernica is not a literal retelling of the Spanish Civil War, but we take its lack of realism at face value. It is an individual’s interpretation of a real event and a viewer of it can not praise it in one breath and decry another like it in the next.

Now, in establishing a proper scope in which to view the film Artemisia, a proper critique can be served. The film is quite honestly abhorrent in what it claims to be and what it actually is. It is not a feminist film, and any artistic integrity that could have been relegated to Merlet is almost denied in that simple fact alone. Fellman appears to hold a similar sentiment in her statement, “A film ought not be judged by its literary or historical fidelity, but in evaluating one that touts its historical basis and its feminist heroine-and was directed by a self-professed feminist, to boot-one must object strenuously to such distortions (Fellman 29).” To continue down this line of thought would prove redundant for me though, considering the critiques offered in my last post. What appears more relevant is how the scope of viewing films should reflect on the film Camille Claudel. While it holds a similar theme to Artemisia, in the sense that love and sex breeds art, the film is much less polarizing. And frankly, it does claim to be something it is not. If anything, it views like a PBS Masterpiece Theatre film, or an A&E special on art in the 19^th century. Unlike Fellman, I did not connect the ‘madness of the mud’ theme to the objectification of Claudel. Instead, I made a negative assumption that that was just how most sculptors were viewed at the time. Further, I connected Claudel’s descent into insanity as a common theme of all artist being a little insane, as defined by modern media. This may appear to be a rather non-analytical approach to the material, in comparison to Fellman’s views, but as critical consumers of media, critiques should be offered outside of the obvious. It is so easy to see objectification in nearly any story, but if the consumer is so focused on one flaw, it may miss the many others. This is not to say that Fellman’s critique does not hold merit, but it feels a bit one-note in the constant stream of discussion surrounding gender depictions.

Post 7

In the article, "Dirty Pictures, Mud Lust, and Abject Desire: Myths of Origin and the Cinematic Object," Susan Fellman asserts that three films, Artemisia, Camille Claudel, and Life Lessons, use the art of filmmaking as a means of projecting an erotically centered underlying message. Focusing on Artemisia and Camille Claudel, Fellman discusses the representation of artist couples in film and the way in which these two biopics about women artists use "its story of lust and art to posit a theory of cinematic origins" (32).
According to Fellman, Artemisia, a film similar to Camille Claudel, in the fact that it is based on the stories of "real" historical female artists, translates images of the artistic relationship, the sexualized interactions between the apprentice and the master, into "images of erotic passion and involvement" (29). The film subverts the talent of the female artist into a mere sexualized pursuit of passions, rather than a pursuit of artistic means and interest. From Fellman's point of view, the film morphs the feminist message and the underlying idea of this woman artist succeeding in a male dominated world into a film that sexualizes art and "collapses artistic sensuality and human sexuality through scenes in which models become sexual objects, artistic compositions become sexual dramas, and visceral responses to artistic images slip into images of pornographic illustration" (29-20). Throughout the film, Merlet turns the identity of Artemisia into one fueled by sexual passions, not artistic innovations. She is no longer a revolutionary artist for the female race, she is now an object to be gazed upon and viewed in merely objective and materialized and overtly sexualized ways. Merlet asserts that the perspective grid is used not to show the technique in art, but to become an extension of the camera frame and the art of filming, becoming a "cinematic screen" itself, solidifying the viewer's relationship with Tassi, i.e. the "male figure of authority, the master" as one with the film's director, who "directs Artemisia's performance" (31). The subject and object become a form of dissolution for the viewer as the boundaries are blurred between the viewer's perception of the subject and object, beholder and beheld, "historical practice and temporary fantasy." The entire film centers around this idea of the gaze, the voyeur, the viewer and the conception of eyes as the means of seeing and perceiving the world. The film "conceives Artemisia as a passionate looker, or voyeur" through her provocations of her adolescent friend and her interactions with her older, adult master.
In Camille Claudel, the director also uses the biography of a female artist as a means of projecting a sexualized and fantasized message about the relationship between a master and his female apprentice. In the film, Camille's identity as a female artist is constructed via her relationship with her "master," Auguste Rodin. It is this relationship that becomes the foundation of the film, from what we have seen so far of it at least, and is the catalyst, according to the article, for Camille's "ultimate descent into madness" (32). According to Fellman, the relationship between Claudel and Rodin can be referred to as "mud lust," and her relationship as the result of the "madness of mud" (32). Their interaction with "mud" or sculpting materials is a "filthy" one and removes the act of art from a realm of artistic creativity to an area of "sexual passion." Claudel becomes just another object in Rodin's creation of art, she herself becomes the muse and object in Rodin's eyes, influencing his artistic achievements via her poses and his future creations. Claudel's behavior and subsequent "madness" becomes an extension of the sculptural qualities of art, with the film portraying her madness via the perversion of her sexuality.
The obscured boundaries between the viewer and what is to be looked at and what is to be subjectively viewed is a huge element of both films. Both Artemisia and Camille Claudel use this idea of the "love of looking" can be viewed as an extension of the director's desire to be viewed himself as an artist. Both directors are in some way replacing themselves as the role of the artist, with the director of Camille Claudel projecting an idea and image of himself as a means of showing his own craft. Additionally, Merlet uses the role of Artemisia Gentileschi as an artist as a metaphor for her own artistic endeavors. Neither films project an accurate portrayal of the female artist, although Merlet does claim that she is a feminist and that this is a feminist depiction, both films actually work against the accuracy of portrayal one wishes to find in a biopic chronicling the life of a female artist.

Post 7

This article is very different from others we have read. It focuses mainly on how in the films Artemisia, and Camille Claudel, “art is progeny of sexual passion…”. In these films, the two women artists are not just shown as passionate for their work, but their love for art turns into passion for a man.
Each young woman in the two films worked under an older man, who serves as their mentor. He teaches them the ways of art and how to develop their skills, and at the same time these men open up these women sexually. Why do both these films link art with sex?
In Artemisia, art is clearly sexualized in the film and the article discusses specific moments in the film where this is apparent. The way the models in the film are shown through the camera lens are highly sexualized, as well as the lessons that Tassi gives Artemisia. When they go to the shore to learn about perspective, he makes Artemisia close her eyes and picture a scene. His tone of voice is a deep, soft hypnotic tone and it is almost as if he is seducing her. Towards the end of the film, the focus is not on art anymore but the sexual relationship between Tassi and Artemisia.
In Camille Claudel, the focus is on lust and art. Camille has two passions, one for art and the other for her mentor Auguste Rodin. The article calls their relationship “mud lust”. I took this as being a combination of their passion for each others talent and a passion for each other sexually.
Even though we have only seen a little bit of this film, I personally like it better already. There is more of a focus on the art that Camille and Auguste produce. The camera focuses on their craft and there are a lot of scenes showing the work process and how much goes into a piece of art. The models are less sexualized in the film as well. Even though art is at times sexualized in this film, it is less than Artemisia. “Art is shown as a product of passion.” For example, there is a scene after Victor Hugo dies where Artemisia comes to Rodin’s studio. She lies on the model platform, face down, to pose for him. He then comes up to her and out of sorrow and lust, kisses her neck. Another example is when the two are sitting together in Paris. He caresses her face lovingly and sexually, and then a flash of him molding a face out of clay appears. Something sexual literally becomes a piece of art.
I understand why art and sex or passion are easily linked in films. Artists have deep passion for their work. It consumes them and it becomes their very being. I believe that sculpting, as opposed to painting, can be sexualized more, which is surprising because the film Artemisia, is more sexualized then Camille Claudel. With sculpting, it is all about touching and molding. It is a “…passion for touching, feeling, and making that is tactile and dirty.” The art itself becomes “highly eroticized.”

Post 7

In the article, "Dirty Pictures, Mud Lust, and Abject Desire: Myths of Origin and the Cinematic Object" Susan Felleman discusses how art is represented as a product of sexual passion and desire. She uses the films "Artemesia" and "Camille Claudel" both artist biopics that chose to focus on the sexual relationships that involved the artists rather than look at their achievements and artistic talent. Both films essentially portray the artists as owing everything, their inspiration, their talent, and their ability to the men in their lives. The art that they produce is entirely related to their involvement with their male mentor's. "Art is shown as the progeny of sexual passion in these films-the child of the artistic parents." I believe that by depicting these women in a way that gives all the credit to men, the filmmakers are doing a great disservice to them and to their story. They are taking women that were empowered and talented and reducing them and their art to nothing but by-products of their relationship. "In each film a young woman artist is apprenticened to an older male, a relationship of power and gender."
In Artemisia, her talent is overshadowed by the arrival of the painter, Tassi, in her life. The man that would become her teacher and eventually her greatest downfall. Her talent and development of her art is overshadowed by the sexual relationship that is depicted in the film. It shows her through the lens of being a girl that is nothing but a slave to her passions. The moment in the film when it shifts from being about her art to her affair with Tassi, is when they are outside and he is teaching her perspective using a grid. This puts the viewer in the master's point of view and turns her into an object. " We join the seducer in effacing the spectacle of nature...and taking Artemisia herself as spectacle, objectifying her, as women are so often, objectified by the gaze of the painter, or the camera." We are not meant to see her as a painter, we are meant to see her as a looker. The film shows her in many different scene's looking at things that she is not supposed to see, sexual acts, and the male nude body. The film depicts her as someone that is obsessed with sexual acts. Her talent is forgotten, her ability to paint is forgotten, what Agnes Merlet wants us to see is a great painter that has been reduced down to nothing but a sexual figure. In doing this the film changes who she was and turns her into someone that she was not. We are not shown a powerful female figure but rather a sexual creature that is meant to be gazed at.
The film "Camille Claudel" uses the same techniques in order to depict her. She is painted as a sexual figure. "Art again is shown as the product of sexual passion." The first scene in the film demonstrates this, she is shown not as an artist that is searching for materials, but rather as an objectified woman that is at the hands of the male gaze. She is stared at by the men in the street that she passes, she is shown as engaging in "dirty, clandestine, criminal, or morally questionable activity." It is not until she meets Rodin that she is in a cleaner and more respected studio. She however stops being an artist and becomes a sexual object the moment that she poses for him. She lets her work fall by the wayside and focuses all her attention onto him and his work. Her work is then shown as a by-product of their relationship, something that was inspired because they are together. There works are sexually charged and appear to owe everything to the relationship. However though once their relationship is over she is the one that seems to lose everything and eventually has to be committed. The film shows that Camille as a sexual figure, owes everything to her relationship with Rodin and without him she would still be searching for mud in the dead of night in order to create.

Post 7

In “Dirty Pictures, Mud Lust, and Abject Desire: Myths of Origin and Cinematic Object, Susan Felleman comments on how art is structured into narrative films. She discusses the idea of the reflexive qualities of artist biopics, with the presence of artwork further affirming the spectator/viewer’s consciousness as the viewer (increasing the viewer’s own self reflection), and moreover she writes about the representation of artist couples in film and the “myth of origins.” Felleman claims that art, in one way or another, is shown to be the love child of white, heterosexual artist couples in films such as Artemisia and Camille Claudel, and that these myths of the origin of art are metaphors for cinematic origin (the creation of film). Felleman writes:

“The art that seems to issue from this love, product of the erotic engagement, becomes the film itself. The narrative is a mythic one of cinematic origins—the couples personifying the ultimately erotic act of film making—that touches upon the peculiar sensibility of the film and its maker(s), be those involved with the quasi-pornographic experience of looking, the almost fetishistic interest in technique and handling, or heroic passions and the valorization of gesture and production” (39).


In her discussion of Camille Claudel and Artemisia, Felleman discusses both the erotic energy that “flows into the production of any art”(plastic and cinematic) and strengthens her argument by noting the mythic qualities present in both films: genius and muse, master and subject (as well as subject/object).
Felleman applies concepts of feminist theory to create a very strong argument. Though Felleman ultimately writes to address the metaphoric qualities of biopics’ portrayal of the origins of art (for the origin of cinema), like the essays of Vidal, Garrard, and Lent, Felleman discusses, to a large extent, the films’ construction of the artistic creation and the overall subject/object relationship between the older male artist teacher and the female artist couple, and the association of women with nature, uncontrollable, needing to be contained by the male.
Felleman notes how in one way or another, both Artemisia and Camille Claudel show the creation of art as highly sexualized and highlight the perception of women as uncontrollable, erratic beings. Psychosexual pathology, writes Felleman, avails itself in Gentileschi as scopophilia, love of looking, and Claudel as coprophilia, “madness of mud,” love of excrement.
Perhaps because I have viewed the film in full, the points Felleman makes about Artemisia in relation to the creation of film is especially strong. The element of lust for looking in Artemisia that Felleman writes about pervades the entire film. Sequences of looking and the presence of subject/object relationship are frequent in the film. Camera close- ups on Gentileschi’s eyes are numerous as are instances times of looking, spying; Artemisia watches in fascination as couple make love on the beach, probes a young male to undress for her, peers through a window to witness one of Tassi’s orgies, and is ultimately discovered to be involved with Tassi through an act of looking—her father’s. Felleman adds her interpretation of the role of the perspectival grid in “sexualized dynamics of the perspectival gaze” (30). As evident in the sequence in which Tassi is giving Artemisia a lesson on visual perspective while she stands behind the perspective grid with her eyes closed, listening to his words (as opposed to actively looking), the shifts between Artemisia being the subject of the gaze to the passive object are common in this film. She is shown to be a voyeur in some ways, with a highly eroticized gaze, but also as an object, objectified by the gaze of the painter and the camera. Felleman’s explanation of the film’s fascination with the act of looking, Artemisia’s scopophilia as a mirror of “every moviegoer’s and every moviemaker’s passion” is very believable.
From what I have watched of Camille Claudel thus far, Felleman makes astute observations, taking a position that I agree with. Felleman’s argument that art is shown to be the product of Claudel and Rodin’s “mud lust” (32) is very evident in what portion of the movie we have seen. The emphasis on Claudel’s filth is present in sequences such as her late night trip to the clay pit, scenes of her sculpting in clay, in a conversation she has with Rodin in a carriage in which she explains her mother’s disliking of her profession and “all that filth,” and perhaps most clearly in the sequence of Rodin forming her portrait bust which features parallel shots of Rodin feeling her human face and his hands forming it in the clay. These sequences overwhelmingly suggest the validity of Felleman’s suggestion of Claudel’s coprophilia, her highly eroticized love of excrement, which is induces a sort of creative hysteria within her. These, along with several sequences showing Claudel as the model, sculpted and contained by the hands of the male artist Rodin, ultimately support Fellman’s comparison of cinematic origin and the “filmmaker’s interest in making” (36).

Post 7

What sells better? Art or Sex? Though this is a question dominant in the advertising industry and allowed to transition between them, the film world is forced to grapple with the appropriate answer in a more permanent response (per film). Of course, that appropriate answer is determined by the context, or intentions of the director. It is also a topic in our previous two films, Artemisia and Camille Claudel. But I would like to take it back a little farther to Frida. successfully blended the themes of art and sex creating an incredibly powerful character (and dare I say role model?) to the fore-front of biopic art films. Unfortunately, the same can not be said for the other two films. Frida was able to be sexually open AND dominant, while still being respected for her talent, and more importantly the film demonstrated where the two themes blended to create a synthesis of meaning. It was fantastic to see a female artist who is sexually liberated and not spend an hour and a half focused on the topic like a pubescent boy waiting anxiously for a boob shot (which there were plenty of). Artemisia and Camille Claudel have done no such thing. Their artistic talents have taken a back burner to their scandalous relationships and sexual identities of their time period. In this way, the narratives of their artistic creations acting as metaphors for the creation of film becomes overshadowed by the human drama of the narrative acting as a metaphor for sexual liberation. Though both women were primarily concerned with their art, the film was more concerned with the human relationships they maintained. After all, a narrative wouldn't be very compelling if it were purely objective.
The narrative of Artemisia revolves around the sheltered life of the female artist who is not allowed to achieve her fullest potential because of theocratic doctrine. Fellman points to a specific scene as a metaphor for film. "Tassi, the male figure of authority, the
master, the director (so to speak) who directs Artemisia's performance. In this scene, the objective landscape and the subjective feminine disappear together and are replaced by fantasy: the fantastic, shimmering, rather cinematic (because temporal) image conjured
by Tassi's poetic utterances and the fantastic image of the objectified feminine, accessible and receptive, eyes shut and lips glistening in passive exultation". Artemisia is the audience and Tassi is the director. If we continue this metaphor, then we acknowledge that we willingly allow the director to "rape" us (steal our subjectivity). With this fascist definition of film, there is a correct answer and life is in black and white according to the person who is explaining life to you. Of course, in the film he is a sentimental lover, but in reality he is a self-centered rapist. The distinction is made in who we give the authority to. By allowing the director to tell us what to see we forfeit our rights to independence. The artistic creation is no longer interpreted but explained; removed from the subjective role and placed into the objective. With that interpretation, the director can make a case for her feminist intentions, which is again unfortunately contradicted by the romantic elements of the story. To interpret this artistic narrative into a metaphor for cinematic construction would be to acknowledge the whole medium of film as an illusion, one that we willingly give ourselves up to expecting to be appreciated and nurtured. That was my main concern with Artemisia. The audience was not appreciated, rather we were manipulated and the revelation of manipulation should, and will always be met with outrage.
The artistic creation in the film (as opposed to of the film) was nice, to a certain degree. The scene in the film where Artemisia draws the fisher-boy was a good example of true artistic objectivity. His body was displayed for what it was. The use of film was entirely appropriate because it allowed for an exhibitionistic experience of understanding both art and form. We were expected to see the nude boy's body as a body and nothing more. There was no metaphor, no subtle meaning, no satire involved. We watched her examine his body and appreciated the form a little bit more than we had before, in a non-sexualized way. Once the act of artistic creation was co-mingled with the sexual relationship, all objectivity was lost. We could no longer view the subject matter for what it was, rather we were forced to examine it in the context it was presented in. Objective art, which I believe should be no-strings attached, is contradicted by the association of meaning between characters. The loss of her virginity was a metaphor, not an objective circumstance. It could have been presented as such, but to do so would be to disregard the feminist critique, and therefore could not be allowed.
Camille Claudel is another film concerned primarily with the human relationship between Rodin and Claudel, though not as openly as Artemisia. The creation of art in the film, as it relates to the creation of the art of the film is displayed through lighting. To sculpt, the artist must see the lines of the muscle beneath the skin and the most efficient way of doing that is by the lighting. When Rodin's use of his curtain is the signifier of the parallel elements of art between sculpture and film. In the scene when Claudel and Rodin are in the carriage together, the shadow covers everything except their heads as if they were sculptures.
The relationship between art and film which can be understood by these two films is voyeurism. The artist is condemned to watch the subject in order to create a reflection in another medium. Film, as a reflection of real life, is an inherently voyeuristic experience, specifically because the actors or characters in the film do not acknowledge they are being filmed. We are peeping toms, scopophiliacs and that is a necessary element to all art, especially including film. I do not agree with Fellman's analysis of the films from a purely sexual perspective. Yes, voyeurism is most often associated with a sexual perversion, but watching is not constrained to sex. Claudel's indulgence of getting messy may have alternate interpretations, such as an assimilation between the self and the object.
Where Artemisia and Camille Claudel approach the subject of metaphor and film are in the elements of production which are also elements of art like perspective and lighting. The sexual associations, I believe, are only present when the artist is unstable and confused. The need for Artemisia to have sex before understanding her painting makes a great deal of sense only because she is young and curious about the transition into professionalism and adulthood. Considering she is going through one of the most significant periods of growth in her life, it is only natural for her to feel confused and unstable. As the article suggests, Camille Claudel indulges in a sexual moment while sculpting only after her life takes a turn for the worst. In the moments of instability sexual perversion becomes something inevitable. Its a desire to find some sense of security through something constant, the constant being their artwork. In this way, Fellman's analysis is accurate, but it is not absolute.

post 7

Susan Felleman analyzes the lack of acknowledgment concerning the capabilities of female artists in recent cinema. Artemisia and Camille Claudel, while both well done and directed for another interpretation, do not aim the area of focus toward what female artists are capable of. Rather the two films just mentioned direct the attention of the audience in a direction of lust and erotic relationships. Both films seem to portray Artemisia and Camille as women who are forms of inspiration to their "mentor". Truthfully, this article is onto something as both times we watched these films I assumed prior to the screening that each film would demonstrate why these women are such talented artists. Rather, the films focus on the loving relationships and fictional historical inaccuracies that in a way ruin the concept of the film. To contradict myself, these were well made films and clearly delivered messages that these films were directed to grasp the intimate relationships rather than the truth about art.
Before diving into each of the films individually and pointing out why the author was entirely correct about the portrayal of women in these films, there are aspects of these films that imply the director chose not to focus on the artistic capabilities, but rather the intimacy of the main characters. In personal opinions, most likely the directors felt that depicting the artistic capabilities would lean toward a documentary vibe. Can documentaries turn a profit in the box office? The answer can not be mine because I simply do not direct films. However, the general assumption could be that the directors of these films felt the Hollywood tone could be easier to portray of the films focused more on love, rather than historical accuracies with the artists. "But in all three films, the passionate commitment to art is seen not only as inherently and originally sexual in its underlying energies, but also as explicitly bound up in sexual forces" (39). There is something about these films that seem to be more among the lines of a love story and most likely the directors wanted nothing else. This was a big mistake on their part as the critics who matter in this subject tend to only focus on the historical inaccuracies.
While unfortunately, the film has been ruined for me through reading the article, it can be assumed that the directors focus on the love based story, rather than the artistic beauty of Camille's sculptures. She was truly a gifted sculptor and the film seems to neglect from demonstrating her abilities. Instead, the film focuses on Camille as Vidal's inspiration. Something about her brings a glowing light bulb in his artistic brain and through her he is inspired to work to perfection. He even says to himself in a particular scene that he can't figure out what it is about her, but something in her image makes him work harder and better than his later years. "Claudel descended after her relationship came to an end in 1893" (33). There is more depth in this sentence. In fact, this brings me back to the concept of inspiration. The author of this article is making a note that the film focuses on not only the love life, but Camille's relationship as an inspiration. He never says he loves her, but treats her great and uses her as his inspiration. The film's message is sent by implying that Vidal was an animal and simply used her, focusing on his own empowerment. This is most likely the director's intentions. We, the audience, are supposed to acknowledge that the film is dedicate to the mistreatment of Camille. She was a gifted sculptor who is led to her own destruction through her fake relationship with Vidal. The article, like previously stated above, is onto something more than just the loving relationships depicted in these stories, but the mistreatment of women in these films.
While the previous paragraph rants about the mistreatment of women and how this film does not focus enough on her capabilities, there is one aspect of the film that demonstrates respect toward who Camille was as a person. Camille has what could be considered in the words of Dr. Libby as a "dysnfunctional family in modern times", but the father is always supporting Camille. He makes her look him in the eye and assures that she acknowledges her own confidence. The father reminds her that she never backs down and doesn't take orders. She simply can reach her destination on her own. The film is allowing us to understand she is headstrong and capable of almost anything artistic. However, the film also creates an understanding that Vidal ruins who she is and uses her as his inspiration.
The reading further demonstrates the perverted aspects of Artemisia. There is no denying that this is a sexual film. This could ranger from Artemisia loving the concept of painting herself or male friend naked to watching Tassi in a gigantic orgy. Aside from the historical inaccuracies of the film consisting of paintings and the trial as previously discusses in last week's blog, Felleman is also concentrating on the creative ideas of the relationship between Artemisia and Tassi. While this blog could be extended forever if only concentrated on the fact that the director was more interested in a false relationship, there is some genius to this film that leans the audience to focus on the creativity of Tassi and how he affects Artemisia as an artist. "One of Artemisia's key images of artistic vision is a paradox" (32). Felleman is noting the creativity to depict Tassi as a mentor who helps Artemisia see the world through her artistic abilities. Unfortunately, this is one of the only scenes in which the film focuses on how gifted she was. A lot of this short film aims the concentration on the love life of Tassi and Artemisia, followed by the opinions of her father. Another scene in the film in which we can understand she is truly gifted is when Artemisia first shows Tassi her art. The camera zooms in on his face, creating an easy interpretation for the audience to understand that he is overwhelmed by her capabilities. Generally, Felleman is correct that this film is not only historically inaccurate for the most part, but art is sexually induced in the films and that the directors spent too much time focusing on the relationships as opposed to what these female artists were capable of. However, I feel that the directors were too concentrated on making a successful, profiting film and tended to move away from what should have been the area of focus. Felleman has some great ideas.

Post 7

According to the article, “Dirty Pictures, Mud List, and Abject Desire: Myths of Origin and the Cinematic Object”, art is depicted as the product of erotic desires and sexual passion. The films both about prominent historical female artists focus on sexual relations rather than artistic talent and female empowerment. The art produced is a result of the artists’ sexual engagement with their male mentors. “The art that seems to issue from this love, product of the erotic engagement, becomes the film itself.” I agree very strongly with the statements of the article and how the films were able to misconstrue the character of such strong female figures by showing them through the lens of their sexual desires. “The films ultimately propose a view of artistic or cinematic origins hardly empowering to women, since each constructs art as a product of a female imagination deformed by either scopophilia and coprophilia.”
In the film Artemisia, the narrative of the film is based on themes of erotic passion and sexual engagement. Even the scenes, which are meant to portray Artemisia as a young, developing artist are overshadowed by her sexual relations with her mentor, Tassi. As stated in the article, “The film boldly sexualizes art.” Artemisia was sent by her father, Orazio Gentileschi, sent Artemisia to study under Tassi and learn the practice of perspective. Although, the practice of learning perspective is an artistic one the film eroticizes the moment by depicting the beginning of the sexual attraction between Tassi and Artemisia. In the film Artemisia is placed behind the geometric perspective screen with Tassi behind her holding her hand. This positioning of Tassi behind Artemisia shows his “male dominance” and the importance of their relationship over her artistic talent. “We join the seducer in effacing the spectacle of nature-or, rather, takings its place- and taking Artemisia herself as a spectacle, objectifying her, as women are so often, so typically, objectified by the gaze of the painter, or the camera.” The films construction doesn’t allow the viewer to accept Artemisia as a talent artist but rather as solely a sexual figure and “passionate looker, or voyeur”. In the beginning scenes of the film, before Tassi enters into the narrative we see Artemisia as obsessed with the female figure. Asking men to model in the nude for her and sneaking around prostitution houses to “spy” on people engaging in sexual acts. “The almost demented, eroticized gaze attributed to Artemisia in this film seems to suggest a psychosexual pathology: Scopophilia, sexual pleasure in looking.” After watching the film the viewer does not have any concept of Artemisia the artist, but rather just Artemisia as a sexual figure. Although, the male influence over the female artist is interesting and very relevant during Artemisia’s career, the film is unsuccessful in portraying Artemisia as a powerful female figure and therefore stripping her of true character. As concluded in the article, “The film wants to have it both ways: to imbue its heroine with (an entirely anachronistic) sexual license and visual subjectivity and at the same time to offer her up as an object of desire.”
Similarly in Camille Claudel, the female artist, Camille Claudel, is depicted under the light of her sexual behavior. Claudel also has been referred to as having a psychosexual pathology referred to as, Coprophilia, “a passion for touching, feeling, and making that is tactile and dirty, virtually scatological, and highly eroticized, love of excrement, which suggests a fixation at the infantile “smearing” stage.” Claudel is a sculptor and therefore very involved with clay and mud. The film sexualizes the materials by relating Claudel’s sculptures. In the opening scene of the film Claudel is stealing clay from a revene in Paris and walking through a group of men late at night. This scene portrays Claudel not as an artist desperate for materials but rather as a “prostitute” figure revealing herself to male spectators at night. In portraying Claudel the director had a choice, to depict her as a strong female character who pushed the boundaries or a young female artist who was influenced by her relationship with the famous French sculptor, Auguste Vidal. Claudel stops being an artist and becomes an object of Vidal when their sexual tension and relations begin. At the moment when Claudel first models for Vidal in the nude she loses her strong female power and presence. Her art becomes shadowed over by her relationship with Vidal and the sexual power he has over her. “But the moment perfectly illustrates both the strangely symbiotic process through which a work of erotic power can come into being and the ease with which the female figure slips from a position of subject to that of object”. The film clearly holds more importance on Claudel’s relationship with Vidal, it is unclear whether this strategy is for entertainment value or Claudel really was unable to detach her artistic talent from her relationship with such and influential sculptor. Although, we have not finished the film it is clear from the article that Vidal will continue to influence and shape Claudel’s life.

Camille and Artemisia

This reading takes us in a somewhat different direction from the previous readings and asks us to look at narratives of artistic creation in Artemisia and Camille Claudel as metaphors for the creation of film. Do you agree or disagree with the author's arguments? Explain your position using examples from the films and the reading.

DUE SATURDAY, MARCH 29.

Testing, testing, 123

Post 6

Belen Vidal, Tina Olsen Lent, and Mary Garrard apply a feminist art historical approach to their discussions of the ways in which the fictionalized depiction of the artist Artemisia Gentileschi in Agnes Merlet’s film Artemisia (1997) is problematic. Though Vidal offers no definitive thesis, her essay looks at the ways in which female artist biopics, such as Artemisia, manipulate the biographies of a famous woman artist of the past to serve contemporary cultural gender ideologies. She applies an overwhelmingly large scope of feminist concepts ranging from subject/object, gaze/glance, nature/culture, and Artemisia’s “looked-at-ness “ to her analysis of the film’s central themes of gazing, posing and framing in attempts to show how the film incorporates the “formative narratives of second wave feminism” and “filter[s] them” (77) through the conventional romance narrative involving Tassi and Artemisia. According to Vidal, Merlet produces a film that reflects on gender and creativity in a truly post-feminist manner. Vidal argues that Artemisia is problematic in its blurring of boundaries between romance narrative and history, and in its overall confusing combination of “previous feminist traditions—especially the narratives of second-wave feminism—and contemporary postfeminism revisions” (Vidal 70).
Lent’s “My Heart Belongs to Daddy,” uses the term “Artemisia fictions,” to address the recent treatments in film and literature of Artemisia Gentileschi, and their conflation of the story of artist and her art, in comparison with the scholarly treatments of her life in the 1970s. Lent gives an in-depth overview of novelistic, story-telling forms—kunstlerromane (coming of age story of the artist, which, in regard to the female, focuses on a growing down), and monograph (non-fictional artist biography which forges the male artist as the genius and hero)—arriving at the conclusion that the Artemisia fictions combine “the narrative conventions of the fictional Kunstlerroman, the fictionalized autobiography, and the non-fictional artist monograph” (Lent 214). By the Artemisia fictions’ narratives formed around the tragic events of her rape and trial, events of heightened emotion, they “reinforce familiar ties between creativity and passion, reiterate women’s creativity as exceptional and the result of male influence.” As the title of the essay suggests, Lent remarks one of the dominant themes of these highly emotional narratives—Artemisia’s sexual relationship with Tassi, and her true love story with her father, Orazio. Lent describes Artemisia’s relationship with these two men, one sexual, and one true love, in relation to the cultural construction depicting male as the creator who forms the female. In the case of Tassi is seen as the male artist who awakens Artemisia, the female, to creative inspiration through his sexuality. The teacher/student relationship featured in Artemisia, is a classic example of the feminist notion of the “feminization of the canvas.” Though Lent uses the analogy of male artists’ “artistic creativity flowing like seminal fluid into their female students,” Artemisia’s relationship with Tassi as featured in the film can also be related to the analogy of the brush of the male artist with a phallus, attacking and crafting the blank female canvas, Artemisia and cultivating her, the formless female. Artemisia’s relationship with Orazio in the film’s narrative highlights another form of the cultural constructed notion of male as the creator, as Orazio is shown to be “the author of [Artemisia’s] life script” (Lent 216). As Lent writes, “he made her a painter, then, through the rape trial, he destroyed her love, introduced her to suffering, and blocked her path toward respectability.” In the Artemisia fictions’ manipulation of the artist’s biography to feature the two central men in Artemisia’s life in the role of the creator, the male genius, and Artemisia in the role of the passive female being formed, they ultimately perpetuating women artist stereotypes.
Mary Gerrard also speaks of the harmful effects Merlet’s fictionalized version of Artemisia’s biography has on feminist progress. Gerrard deems the movie as a problem piece in its straying from the historical reality and its heavy sexualizing of Artemisia’s biography, a decision which instead of creating a work highlighting women’s freedom of choice (which is arguably Merlet’s intention), Merlet’s actually plays into many damaging stereotypes. Gerrard points out that the film neglects to give the viewer any conception of why Artemisia’s works are important and instead it highlights a recurring theme of “inappropriate sexualizing of what are really [Artemisia’s] artistic interests” (i.e. her interest in drawing her boyfriend in nude is misinterpreted as a sexual invitation as a opposed her genuine interest in human anatomy) (Gerrard 67). Gerrard also touches upon the film’s damaging depiction of female artistic inspiration as the creation of male sexuality, of Tassi’s sexuality ultimately being responsible for unlocking Artemisia, as discussed by Lent. Gerrard comes to a similar conclusion as Lent in her deeming that Artemisia’s sexuality overrides her acknowledgement as an artist.
I tend to agree with Vidal, Lent, and Gerrard that fictionalizing history in a biopic is overall damaging. In the case of a woman artist, it is a step backwards in the progress towards the woman artist being acknowledged as the subject, as opposed to always being associated with the object being looked at, analyzed. The distortions of the historical record about Artemisia’s relationship with Tassi and her father are for this same reason not justifiable. If the common cultural perception of women as the ones being given form (literally and figuratively) by the male, is ever to be changed, forms of media which are consumed by the media, such as films, must refrain from showing woman’s artist as being shape and direction by the male artistic genius.