What's the point of this? It feels like a Charlie Kauffman student film. i;m so tired of all this film snops who think they are smart, and they pretend to like Citizen Kane.
You think Mrs. Doubtfire is the greatest comedy of all time?
But it did happen
It's about the psychological trauma of marriage and how it can lead to a woman's loss of identity.
Perhaps you'd make more sense of it if you'd see it for what it is: a surrealist exploration of dream states that relies on characters, settings and the semblance of a narrative in place of actual chronological time.
[deleted]
Although, like many, I am guilty of calling this film 'surrealist', Maya Deren herself not only claimed it isn't but wrote a number of vitriolic (and very eloquent) diatribes against surrealism.
The difference is definitely there in intention. She accuses the surrealists of basically doodling with Freudian symbols rather than having any clear artistic goal or plan.
I have read several books on David Lynch, for instance, and, although I am a fan of his work (and that of the older surrealists like Cocteau and Dali), he never actually explains anything.
Deren is the opposite. She is quite clear about what she is trying to achieve and wants the viewer to experience her train of thought - and goes to great lengths to explain herself. While the surrealist's work is quite thought provoking, Deren is deadly serious about what she is trying to communicate.
The academic debate over whether her work can escape the tag of surrealist is by no means settled. The intention is there, but is the result different for the casual viewer?
To the writer who said he didn't see what it was about, I've added several readings in my review (linked below), but maybe the best starting point is Deren herself said it was, "concerned with the inner realities of an individual and the way in which the subconscious will develop, interpret and elaborate an apparently simple and casual occurrence into a critical emotional experience."
Incidentally, for anyone strongly interested in Deren's work, could I maybe recommend a collection of essays which goes far beyond my own understanding:
MAYA DEREN AND THE AMERICAN AVANT-GARDE by Bill Nichols (ed)
University of California Press 2001 paperback 332pp
"The thinking of dancer and filmmaker Maya Deren is not the easiest to get your head around. I found it a welcome relief that Bill Nichols has collected a series of the most lucid, well-written essays you can imagine. Reading them has solved most of the dilemmas I had concerning her films. The inclusion of the full text of Deren’s own, long out-of-print text, An Anagram of Ideas on Art, Form and Film, sets the barrier even higher. Deren’s films have inspired many subsequent filmmakers with their innovate techniques. As have her efforts for independent cinema. But her writings on the philosophy of art applied to cinema challenge some of the most profound thinkers of the day. Her ideas are difficult, but she is pointedly not out to mystify or bamboozle. Persevere, and her razor-sharp intellect cuts through not only the difficulties suggested by her own work, but shreds the theories of the competition."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036154/usercomments-21
Although, like many, I am guilty of calling this film 'surrealist', Maya Deren herself not only claimed it isn't but wrote a number of vitriolic (and very eloquent) diatribes against surrealism.
http://comments.imdb.com/user/ur0064493/comments-index?order=date&; summary=off&start=0
Yes. The book I mentioned above has a complete reprint of her long out-of-print work, An Anagram of Ideas on Art, Form and Film. But the essay I found most illuminating, and perhaps even more helpful in a less specialised way, is Cinematography: the Creative Use of Reality (by Maya Deren), which is contained in a collection of writings on by various authors in a book I'd also very much recommend called, Film Theory and Criticism (6th ed), which is edited by Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen (OUP 2004).
It's not about perceived film snobbery—is it so hard to believe that there are people who genuinely like & appreciate something that's artistically different? It's not meant to be viewed as a straightforward narrative, with a distinct & logic story arc; it's meant to be experienced as a totality, as a dream is experienced, as the welter of powerful memories are experienced, where time & place are fluid & overlapping, and emotional tones are what matter most. (And a binding thread can be found within this film, connecting what initially might seem random or confusing, if you give yourself over to it.)
Also, plenty of viewers don't pretend to love Citizen Kane, they flat-out love it.