Tscherkassky is so obsessed with cinema that the only original thing he can think of doing with it is meddle, fiddle and screw around with the footage of other movies. This way we can look at the film from a suitable detached perspective. We’re looking at the art itself. This one is only 2 minutes long and depicts the most cinematic of all events: a woman getting off a train.
The least violent (in it's relation to the spectator) of Tscherkassky I've seen so far. And - how much these two are connected I'm yet to find out - my least favourite. Seems more like a study into experimental films (I had to think of Burroughs Cut-Ups for a minute) then the emotional cacaphony his other words inflicted on me.
Stilistisch und formal gelungene Hommage an den Beginn der Filmgeschichte (Gebrüder Lumère 1895). Aesthetisch schöne, flirrende und irritierende Bildelemente unterbrechen immer wieder die Handlung: Bahnhofszene aus längst vergangener Zeit ... Zugsankunft ... Dame steigt aus ... Umarmung ... Ende des Films. Ich musste den Film ein paar Mal sehen und fand ihn sehr schön !
People did heaps of stuff like that in the 50s and 60s, and back then it was relevant, controversial, funny, fresh and important, but 1998 it's just lame. Also, the Mubi versions seems to be interlaced, or is that intentional. On second thoughts, it doesn't matter really. What I would like instead of a short 3 minute snippet here and there would be a short film reel of experimental movies from the 50s/60s.
A perfect antithetic experiment-response to the Lumière's testimony. Where before a train came to the camera, here the cameraless screen crashes and burns into itself, a pure portrait of reality turned into an anti-reality. After the structural pulverization, it closes with the final touch of purpose:the arrival of the woman establishes everything a filmic document does not entail: intention, manipulation, narrative.
I've been always fond of Tscherkassky's work; this particular one is more of a thematic study or something like a 'young's person guide' to his idiosyncratic cinema: a cinema that foregrounds its very own language-the very materials that produce it in terms of film, editing, post-processing,etc)-which, nevertheless, does not avoid narration altogether-as this case soundly exemplifies.