>>besides the fact that there is the clear assumption that all of us are under the influence,i believe we have found a member of the League of Extraordinary,Boring,Old Critics indeed…<,
As to the first part of that statement, the assumption is entirely on your part. I was making none.
As to the second part: Bite me.
“the assumption is entirely on your part. I was making none.”
pardon me sir,but i was including you to the list as well :)
“Bite me”
i can’t do that but thankfully,Old Criticism will be dead anytime soon…
" “I’ve yet to see any director adopt Bresson’s style of non-acting”
There are so many, from Kiarostami, Kaurismaki, Jean Pierre Melville, Sokurov, Bela Tarr, Carlos Reygadas."
I can’t speak for Kaurismaki or Melville, but I think Bresson would admit that all these directors have some sort of acting in their films, despite using non-professional actors. Their actors aren’t totally drained of all emotion. Influenced by Bresson’s method of understatement in acting, sure.
Another signature.
“I’ve yet to see any director adopt Bresson’s style of non-acting”
I think you could argue that Jim Jarmusch is somewhat Bressonian. Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet are another great example as well.
Count me in for one who enjoys pure cinema as well. However, I don’t think it has to be something as experimental as Wavelength or Dog Star Man. A great action flick, for example, can even been pure cinema in my opinion.
@Sandwiches, you have to see Kaurismaki and melville and they are removed from emotions, especially early kaurismaki like Shadows in paradise and Ariel. Or JP Melville’s Samourai. Its not acting,, theyre just “themselves”. Im sure that kaurismaki and melville didnt controlled the set like Bresson did to even go as far as measure the steps that the model will take. Bresson created an genre of filmmaking. True emotion comes from restrain and austerity. He hated theatre as well as many of his followers due to the lack of realism. Lance Hammer who did “Ballast” likes this type of non acting style.
i dont particularly care for the comparison between jarmusch and bresson. bresson’s cinema is more abrasive. jarmusch is more smooth and meditative. bresson scrubs his actors clean. jarmusch just lets them float around.
though minimalist, bresson’s cinema can be very harsh and jagged. jarmusch sneaks up on you after lulling you to sleep. ones is a dream, the other’s is a nightmare. which means one is certainly darker than the other.
Pure cinema: Hichcock’s Rear Window and Michael Snow’s Wavelength.
Streetcar: I love Rear Window, but why would you say that’s pure cinema?
Very simple—the entire film is seen from Jimmy Stewart’s point of view and never ever leaves his room—many people and critics recently have cited it as “pure cinema”—by the way the film for a few seconds does break Stewart’s point of view—most people can’t find it but it’s there in plain sight and fun to find it—Hitchcock did it on purpose I’ve been told because he was a great admirer of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s almost pure point of view in his narrator Nick Carraway—Nick tells us in last pages of brief novel 1 thing that he can’t possibly know because he wasn’t there when it happened—one of my professors always taught that fact and none of his students could answer the question: when does narrator break point of view in The Great Gatsby? Both The Great Gatsby and Rear Window are considered by many as nearly perfect works of pure art from technical point of view with only 1 minor techinal flaw in each.
Streetcar: I think I know which part you’re talking about. ;)
Plus there’s also the fact that there is no film score other than the music that comes from within the film.
“rear window” is a great example of the mechanism of pure cinema. maybe its not as pure as the way we’re talking about the concept, in extremely orthodox terms. but in general terms, hitch’s cinema is pure because he subjugates everything to the needs of the camera, and editing is extremely important for his process as well.
I liked Rear Window quite a lot when I was a kid, but it’s been almost ten years since I’ve had any use for the films of Sir Alfred.
He was a brilliant craftsman, and I can understand why plenty of people (including some filmmakers I happen to like) admire his movies, but if “pure cinema” exists, I imagine it would be a lot less corny and clichéd than anything by Hitchcock.
(Semantics, yes.)
hitchcock cliched? more than a few cliches were born specifically from rampant copying of hitchcock. for one, the suspense film as we know it didnt even really properly exist until hitchcock codified and perfected it.
corny? not sure about that one. if so, no more corny than any classical film with outdated slang or modes of behavior.
Yes it’s all about semantics, but I think calling him a ‘craftsman’ is rather dismissive. He created such a unique and distinct body of work in the heart of the ‘studio era’ that few other filmmakers, that I’ve seen, have been able to do. Along with people like Billy Wilder and Preston Sturges.
I tend to agree with Dave A lately. I see Hitch as more of a craftsman than an artist but I’m not sure if it’s been established that “pure cinema” has any qualitative meaning.
Mike: Why is HItchcock more of a craftsman than artist?
I don’t want to totally hijack this thread with a long Hitchcock argument. Here’s part of my reasoning:
http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/acad/forms.shtml
Mike: I’ll read it later ‘cause it’s gonna take some time to go through it, but I’ll just say I can’t see Hitchcock as that, ‘cause I see a ’craftsman’ is one who doesn’t make a distinct impact on their work but makes good/great films nonetheless.
So, like Robert Wise? I see what you mean. I think these subjective terms can be difficult to pin down but for me what you mean by “a distinct impact” is the definition of an auteur, which Hitch definitely is. A case could be made however that a lot of filmmakers such as Bay, Ed Wood, Tony Scott, all make a distinct impact without actually creating a meaningful work of art. Again, it’s all subjective but I think it’s pretty easy to use certain shots, or cameos, or acting styles and have attentive viewers notice patterns that indicate a signature style. My subjective value judgment against Hitchcock has nothing to do with what makes the look or subject matter of his films unique.
Mike: I actually haven’t watched any of Wise’s films. Yes that’s the definition of an auteur, but I’d consider Hitch an artist. I know I’ll contradict myself, but thinking about it more I would argue any director could be considered an artist, even Bay. The only thing that would be argued is whether they’re a good or bad artist.
Okay, I’ll grant you that and then state that for me Hitchcock is a bad artist. I might have chosen mediocre artist but you only gave me two options ;)
Mike: True, but I think we all know that film discussions have no middle ground. ;)
interesting essay. the pragmatic and the visionary artist/film. i just think hitchcock can be both.
Clement Greenberg thought purity meant that the medium would be about itself. This suggests that François Truffaut’s film Day for Night might be pure cinema. I’m surprised no one mentioned Errol Morris as conforming with the wiki definition posted earlier.
I was reading a Truffaut essay and then I thought about this thread. I’d consider Truffaut a ‘purist’.
I know there is some confusion from open-minded people about what pure cinema is. Posted below is my lecture that I will give after screenings of my new 16mm short film.
As for the ignorant negative people on here who hate the concept of pure cinema and try in vain to deny the truth of it, i have nothing to say to them except to observe that a lack of receptive sensitivity to the emotional and aesthetic effects of cinematic technique, the exhiliration and sensual pleasure and entertainment of montage and cinematography and sound design, does not mean it doesn’t exist or make sense. Pure Cinema just goes over some people’s heads and they don’t see it or enjoy it for what it is. At least as of now I have lacked a receptive sensitivity to certain art forms like dance, sculpture, and computer graphic arts, but it doesn’t mean I’m so ignorant that I’m mad at them or try to deny their existence.
Here is my lecture. enjoy!
PURE CINEMA LECTURE
1. YES, MY 16MM FILM “PALMS, A NEIGHBORHOOD” IS A PURELY CINEMATIC NON-STORY NON-CHARACTER ABSTRACT FILM WITH NO ACTING AND NO DIALOGUE
I love cinematic technique: montage, camerawork, and sound design used for its own pleasure, excitement, and emotional impact, not in subordination to literary and theatrical ends, but pure and free and strong as a autonomous sight and sound experience that is uniquely thrilling.
Cinema can be so much more than another way to tell a story or another way to see a play. Pure Cinema creates a special film-space in which I can enjoy feelings and sensations I could not experience through literature, theatre, music, dance, graphic novels, digital video, still photography or any other art form or in any other place.
2. THE INLAVID USE OF THE WORDS “STORY” AND “NARRATIVE”
My favorite films are non-narrative cinematic experiences that have nothing to do with storytelling. “Man With The Movie Camera”, BARAKA, 21-87, Jordan Belson’s abstract 16mm films, “Pas de Deux”, Slavko Vorkapich’s montages and his films “Moods of the Sea” and “Forest Murmurs”, Bruce Conner’s film “A MOVIE”, “Dog Star Man”, and many others are all non-story non-character cinematic experiences.
All anyone has to do to is look up the dictionary definition and etymology of the words “story” and “narrative” to understand their real meaning. The words have simple definitions and easy to understand etymologies in older languages like Greek and Latin. For instance, the words “story” and “narrative” have nothing in common with the etymology and definition of “music” and “melody”. Any art that is abstract automatically can’t be referred to as narrative or story – to do so is invalid, an oxymoron. Literal physical events and characters represented in some kind of concrete “time and space” setting are really the only thing that those words ever refer to going by their etymologies and definitions. They were never meant to encompass abstract moods, feelings, emotions, ideas, or the abstract use of qualities like color, light, motion, sound, texture, choreography and visual composition. The words “story” and “narrative” can only apply to some kinds of representational and referential art; they cannot apply to any kinds of abstract works in any way. I personally don’t care about storytelling, characters, or plot, and I don’t have to. I prefer cinematic technique. I love using editing and the camera with abstract stylized sounds to create emotions, sensations, and moods that would not exist if the technical mechanism of cinema did not exist. That’s what I love about movies and it is why cinema is my favorite art form.
I completely agree with people who love literature and always complain that movie adaptations of books are disappointing. I believe they have a very valid and profound point. Any filmmaker who is honest knows that well written books have much more space and detail in which to tell stories and develop characters than any film ever could. Any honest actor knows that acting and dialogue when seen live in a good play is much more entertaining and absorbing than on a movie screen. I do personally like storytelling and acting and dialogue but I could do without them. What I love about cinema are the techniques of sound and cinematography and montage which I cannot get in books or plays or anything else. Anyone who cannot appreciate reading books and watching plays can stay home watching TV or they can look at graphic novels and comic books. There is no reason for them to watch movies or make movies.
I know that cinema can be so much more than a subordinate, derivative, illustrative, and referential medium. Movies can be so much better than just an inferior form of storytelling or theatre for people that are too impatient to read books and watch plays.
I love what is cinematic and storytelling inherently is not cinematic; it is literary, oral, verbal, text. Acting and dialogue is not cinematic; it is theatrical. For my movies, I will only use material that is inherently cinematic.
As a side note, I know that some view movies as nothing more than a synthesis of other arts and I disagree with this view in many ways. Most importantly, movies cannot come close to synthesizing the best of the other arts. Ultimately that just makes films a diluted, half-baked mix of other arts that gets in the way of the most important and special part of watching a movie: the pure joy, power and entertainment of editing, camerawork, and sound design that cannot be enjoyed in any other medium.
There are a few common misunderstandings of the words “story” and “narrative” that I would like to deal with right now. I believe that an objective analysis of the definitions and etymologies of the words makes it apparent that they do not mean just any kind of -X progression in time or any pacing in an artwork
X structure, form, design or sequence that is created in an order and with a context
X meaning or metaphor or symbolism or ideas that are in an artwork
X that different parts or scenes or sequences begin and end and play out together in a certain sequence or order
X anything that has a beginning, middle, and an end
X and they do not just refer to any piece of art wherein things change and become different
I think it is very important to understand that these 2 words are not abstract descriptions of some general quality that can be found in any kind of art or in life. They are actually literal words that have a concrete meaning; they describe representational referential forms of art, ones that fully develop events and characters in some kind of physical space that is taking place in a literal time period or periods. That’s all those words mean when they refer to the art of storytelling and narrative. There are other valid uses of the word story in other non-art contexts like describing different levels of a building, or the factual contents and background of something like a news report or a police report, or it can be used casually as slang for “a lie”. Those are the other valid uses of the word story that you will find in its real definition and etymology.
Abstract works of art with no story and no narrative like my film can have structure, form, design, purposeful sequence of images and sounds, pacing. They can have abstract metaphors and meaning and symbolism and ideas. Images and sounds and scenes can appear in a specific order and they can have context or meaning because of that order and still have nothing to do with story or character.
I know there are open-minded people who are honestly curious about what storytelling and narrative actually mean and I will always welcome a patient friendly discussion with mutual respect where both people listen to each other in a mature and rational way. That is something I will make time for in my life.
On the other hand, there is also a silly overblown use of these words by people who believe they refer to everything in life and in art. Of course this is baseless and I believe that in a small and harmless way it is fascist, like a religion or a political ideology of life that a few people will irrationally defend without any honest objective basis in facts. And just like with any fanatical believers of an irrational religion or ideology there is nothing I or anyone else can say to make them see the light. I don’t know where this misconception came from but I am not going to waste any of my time going around in circles with people who are determined to argue evasively and dishonestly about this subject. I have unfortunately had this experience before and I definitely have better things to do in my life.
Most forms of art, and most subjects and experiences in life and in this world, are not described by, nor included, in the real definitions of the words “story” and “narrative”. Watching a beautiful sunset or a sunrise, listening to a piece of music and dancing to it, reading philosophy, or just enjoying the beauty of flowers or anything in nature, all have nothing to do with storytelling or narrative. There is so much more to life and to art and to enjoying this world. A cinema that is free of stories, characters, actors, and dialogue, which instead creates a purely cinematic experience of montage, camerawork, and sound design, is heaven for me, it is nirvana.
I would assume if a Gallup poll of the world’s population could be taken about this subject that most people do understand what these 2 words actually mean. Obviously, majority opinion about something does not always turn out to be correct but I think in this case it is just the common sense understanding of what the words mean and refer to.
It has always appeared to me that most artists working in abstract film and video and “visual music” also know that their own works are non-story non-narrative films. I know that George Lucas describes all of his 16mm abstract films which he made in the 1960s as non-story non-character purely visual movies with no narrative. I know that the British experimental filmmaker and painter Peter Greenaway understands his films and his paintings as non-narrative, non-story works. Modern experimental and abstract filmmakers Ron Fricke, Alfonso Alvarez, Patrick Halm, Pat O’Neil, Phil Solomon, Larry Cuba, Jon Behrens, and Kerry Laitala, to name a few, all refer to their works as non-story films. Most importantly to me, one of my biggest heroes, the early 20th Century Soviet filmmaker Dziga Vertov, understood that his films were not narrative and did not tell stories. And the avant-garde film movement in Paris in the 1920s called “cinema pur”(French for Pure Cinema) was made up of artists like Man Ray, Rene Clair, Ferdinand Leger, and Germaine Dulac, all of whom exalted in getting rid of storytelling and character and literal settings in their abstract films.
But there are a few artists in abstract film and video, and “visual music”, that I have come across, who call their works narrative or storytelling and I have always been surprised and perplexed by them.
For instance, Charles Eames made an obviously non-story non-character driven visual film set to Mozart called “Blacktop” and he put on it the subtitle “a story of the washing of a school play yard”. It is obvious that the movie is about how his camera visually studies the light and colors reflected in the water washing over the blacktop asphalt and those qualities have nothing to do with the real definition of the word “story”. For all I know Mr. Eames may have just thoughtlessly applied the word to his film in an invalid way and that he would have even admitted as such if it had ever been brought up with him.
Another instance of this was Charles Sheeler’s description of his city symphony film from the 1920s “Manhatta”. It’s obvious to me that it is a non-story non-character impression of New York but he once said that New York is the story and that the city was the character in the movie. Again, he might have been using the words story and character loosely and thoughtlessly. Instead, I think he should have said that New York was the “visual subject” and then maybe called it “the star” of his film.The most disappointing misuse of the word “narrative” that I have ever come across was by a favorite abstract filmmaker of mine, Stan Brakhage. He once said that only some of his films are non-narrative and that some have a narrative because they have changing visuals that need to be watched in a certain order or sequence – this of course is not the definition of the word “narrative”. Almost all of Mr. Brakhage’s films that I have been lucky enough to see so far are non-narrative. Narrative does not mean any pre-planned structure or order or form in an artwork. Many non-narrative films like mine are scripted, pre-visualized and have a designed sequence, structure, and form and those qualities have nothing to do with the real definition of the words “narrative” and “story”.
By the way, there are many stories and narratives in literature and in the theatre that are loosely structured and formed, some are non-linear, some do not have the traditional structure of a beginning, middle, and an end, some have only 1 or 2 acts instead of 3 and some have 4 or 5 acts or even more, and some do not have a meaningful or purposeful sequence and order of their scenes, but regardless of all that, they are all still defined as stories and narratives. And that is what Mr. Brakhage did not understand when he erroneously referred to some of his abstract and experimental films as narratives.
I have also heard a small group of “visual music” filmmakers, digital video artists, and computer animators, a dozen or so in number, refer to their films and video pieces as a form of storytelling. I think they are usually referring to the fact that there are certain symphonies that are “programmatic music” and are based on a story. This ignores the fact that those are only one of many kinds of symphonies. Even programmatic music includes pieces that are based on other kinds of extra-musical subjects that are not stories, like places in the world(an example would be Felix Mendelssohn’s masterpiece “Fingal’s Cave”) or some are based on philosophical concepts like Richard Strauss’ “Also Sprach Zarathustra” and Beethoven’s 9th, or other subjects like Gustav Holst’s “Planets”, or some are just inspired by certain kinds of images generally-speaking like Beethoven’s 6th “pastoral” symphony (Beethoven was inspired by images of beautiful peaceful country life) But all other kinds of symphonies, the majority, are pure music, absolute music. They are not supposed to refer to anything outside of themselves; they are just a musical experience of melodies, harmonies, and orchestrations of instruments for their own pleasure and nothing else. Whatever feelings, emotions, and moods from his life that the composer may be inspired by are transformed and translated into the unique language and form of music which creates feelings which would not exist and could not be felt in this world and in this life if it were not for the existence of music and the orchestra and the instruments.
In my opinion, all music is first and foremost a direct sensory experience that is about emotions, moods, and sonic effects. All music is pure and absolute and whatever extra-musical basis there may be is neither here nor there for the audience while they experience it. The only way someone would know about the extra-musical inspiration would be by reading about it or reading the title and that is just reading about the music, not listening to it.
Most symphonies and classical compositions, and I would even say most other forms of music too, are not based on a story and even the minority that are, I still believe they are enjoyed for reasons that are not described by the definition of the word “story”.
I believe that these are the main misunderstandings that these “visual music” artists have.
I think it should be kept in mind that words themselves are not absolute and definitive. They are man-made, largely subjective, and culturally-derived and they are just a limited tool used to communicate and describe things to others. They change their meanings throughout time and some become obsolete. Reality is not contained by words. Reality is not fully or perfectly described nor determined by the words we speak or write or by the thoughts in our head that we put in the form of words. Before any of us learnt how to speak any languages or learnt how to think in the form of words, we still saw, felt, heard, tasted, smelled and experienced this life and this world. I believe this is why the old saying “a picture speaks a thousand words” is fundamentally flawed and invalid – the picture came first before any words or languages were ever invented by humans. The picture doesn’t speak any words, let alone the arbitrary number of “a thousand”.
Reality and our sensory/visceral/emotional perceptions of reality come first and should always be more important than any spoken or written languages. I believe only certain kinds of experiences and subjects can be adequately expressed and described in words if done skillfully by a poet or an author or a speaker but for most things words are reductionist and unnecessary and I believe the most powerful, pleasurable, fun, and interesting parts of life cannot be expressed or described by words. They need to be directly experienced visually, aurally, and viscerally in order to be truly felt and enjoyed and understood.
I would like to make one more point about this subject: in a abstract movie like mine a viewer can bring their own emotions and ideas to it and subjectively interpret abstract metaphors from the juxtaposition of unrelated shots and sounds but none of that has anything to do with forcing something as literal, representational, reductionist and simplistic as a “story” onto the abstract film or onto any kind of abstract work of art for that matter. That would be just as invalid as someone labeling a symphony as a form of painting because that’s the category that they want to force it into instead of enjoying the symphony on its own terms, terms that of course are different from the art form of painting. When making my movies, I am not inspired by anything as reductionist and limiting as a story or a narrative and my movies deserve the kind of viewer who does not try to force them down to that literal, representational level.
Enjoying and feeling a great piece of art in the moment on its own terms is all that really matters. If someone wants to talk or write about the artwork later and use words falsely in the process I know it doesn’t always mean that they did not enjoy it for what it truly is. As long as a viewer of my film experiences it emotionally and finds it exciting and moving, they can call it whatever they want afterwards, even if it’s absurdly false, like labeling it a building or a painting or a symphony or something else obviously invalid. All that truly matters in the end is that a piece of art is effective, mesmerizing, entertaining, fun, interesting, powerful, or whatever else it set out to be.
from what i gather – and perhaps i should say that this is only from the bresson i’ve seen, the reactions i had to it, and his ‘notes on a cinematographer’ – , pure cinema is that which holds its potency not necessarily in the standard techniques of dramatic, response-provoking film making, but in how the audience experiences it, asking the audience to bring material to the film just as equally as the director has brought. it is a film made that has no blatant, aggressive motive, forcing the viewer to pull together bits and pieces from the film and themselves and so, granting them almost as much power to make it as devastating or dull as they are willing to reveal themselves.
from the first, i think of ‘au hasard balthazar’, schubert sonata noted but included. there is no film that has moved me to that extent (although, of course, bergman is in very similar and undoubtedly equal territory), no film that has drawn out those tears from that portion of my soul before. and yet i’ve had the experience of showing it to people who found very little or nothing in it and i don’t assign myself any higher importance because i did have such an overwhelming response, of course, but i think there is something to be said for those of certain soul-searching sensibilities. because ‘balthazar’ is stark and unsympathetic to the viewer, they are given the chance to feel their own emotions, to not have these craftily created, effective but false feelings that so much, if not all, of hollywood seems to rely on.
bresson does not tell you to feel one way or the other about this donkey or the girl. marie may be somewhat more sympathetic a character than balthazar, obviously as a human it would be easier to relate, but i think that’s also more evidence of bresson’s genius in that i wept for balthazar. perhaps i’m also of the type that wonders whether they really do get along better with animals but people, but bresson portrays these creatures in such a universal way. the scene at the circus is a perfect example of not only the power of eye communication, but strikingly, of how also how one does understand those expressions, species barriers and all.
again, i think it is important to note that i am the kind of person who relates, values, empathizes (whatever it is, i’ve yet quite to define it) with animals just as much as i do humans, as i think that is exactly my point. bresson is not demanding you be pained at balthazar’s circumstances and even allows another character (marie) to be involved in parallel situations so that something can be provoked a little more comfortably, something very similar if not identical to the response of a sensitive person to balthazar. it’s as if bresson speaks a certain language, veiled underneath the already obscured language, and the attention to the animals’ eyes, the attention of every living creatures’ eyes is the dialogue of that language.
he does not translate himself, he does not invite people into his world, his dreams, but if you do happen speak his language, he has created something for you in your own tongue, your own otherwise lonely tongue. even then, it’s still not a forced message but one that you can only hope to interpret for yourself personally, that has been created knowing that the only kind of communication ever capable of truly expressing anything to another being can never be in anyone else’s words, must be interpreted, individually-created by to whom is trying to communicate to.
like the importance of dreams not necessarily in dreaming itself but of what you respond to, bresson only crafts light and sound to allow you to view, to experience your own reaction. if nothing responds in you (and please do note i’m not condemning those of you who don’t; we are all of different languages that cannot be valued one over the other), then you don’t speak the same tongue, aren’t familiar with that which bresson is murmuring, and can’t understand. to try to introduce a concrete metaphor, a french poet most likely will write in french, as that is the language he is most capable in. he is not refusing readers of other languages by writing in french and he cannot try to translate there for the nonfrench-speaking.
to those that do speak bresson’s language, or even understand glimpses of it enough to be moved by it as i would place myself in so as not to be presumptuous as i’m sure there are layers upon layers left for me to investigate, he asks why you understand, asks you to ask yourself why you understand, and offers this strange, but so very strong comfort in knowing that at least someone else has experienced similar things in similar ways.
even the schubert sonata, which i’ve read he now regrets having used, requires a certain understanding with schubert, not only of him and his life but also of his music, if it moves you, if you understand his tongue as well. it’s understandable, though, his doubts now as it does have more an indulgent and imposing sentiment than i think bresson wanted.
hah, this seems to have turned out to be more a tangent on bresson, but i couldn’t help but think ‘au hasard balthazar’ was a perfect example of pure cinema. there is nothing trying to be communicated in any way than that of the most intangible, the most indefinable expression and even then, it requires a dialogue with the viewer. it itself is pure enough for the viewer to project themselves onto the screen, to feel themselves. it is personal exploration of previously undiscovered depths through both the auteur and the viewer, each requiring the very most uncomfortable of vulnerability. that, that is what defines cinema as a new art form, undoubtedly evolved from other art forms, but now capable of being something in its own, entirely unattached and unweighted from what it has come from.
dp
Col. Dax
I don’t take drugs. In fact, I’d argue being on substances would lessen the enjoyment of these films. The level of concentration needed just to understand (let alone enjoy enough to call it a favourite) for a film like Wavelength, or Unser taglich Brot, or Dog Star Man is much above the ability of someone who is intoxicated.