A kind of antifilm equivalent of Dalí's Fountain: Objets trouvés repurposed arbitrarily in the it's-art-because-I-say-so manner of Dalí (incidentally Dalí half-jokingly claimed that Cornell stole the idea from him). I got the point early on, and thus this could be 20 minutes or 2 minutes long and the effect would be the same.
I wanted 'Rose Hobart' to be good. I tried to will it into goodness, but all I got was fail. I'm a huge Joseph Cornell fan. Huge. I'm 6'8". The idea behind the film is a genius idea. Take your favourite actor or actress and re-edit one of their films so that it highlights their performance. The problem is that it the choices may be too personal. Let's just call it a brilliant failure.
I hope Peter Tscherkassky was subconsciously influenced by 'Rose Hobart' when he was making 'The Exquisite Corpus'. Or consciously. Either way it takes nothing from Tscherkassky and gives Cornell the ineffable awe he deserves. We are slaves to images as much as we are liberated by them. And sometimes, like now, I don't care. Even the second-hand crush on Hobart feels right, as much a crush on Cornell and film. 1936!
I don't know. Vellaem. I liked it. It moves like a dream moves. It took a pieces from a movie that was probably cheesy, poorly acted, etc. And he took these pieces and created a real sense of mystery and movement. Even if there was no linear storyline, I was intrigued by the emotions of Rose the whole time. Very cool.