Persistencies of Sadness & Still Days, the four hour feature film by Maximilian Le Cain and Rouzbeh Rashidi is now complete. Structured in two sections or ‘takes’ of two hours each, this dream-like, experimental project offers two complementary explorations of cinematic form that skirt around possible narratives, ducking through a series of fluctuating audio-visual categories and intensities. It stars Rashidi, John McCarthy and James Devereaux, and will be premiered in Cork, where it was mostly shot, this summer.

Some updates on Homo Sapiens Project:

As the project is reaching to 100^th installment, a special feature length episode is currently under pre-production. It will be a half experimental documentary and half fiction film featuring Maximilian Le Cain concerning cinema itself in 21^st century.

Beside that Jennifer Sharpe joined forces with Rouzbeh Rashidi on the project and she will be contributing to some of the upcoming installments as an actress and camera-operator.

The photograph below is from HSP (93):

An expanded cinema piece by “Jann Clavadetscher” and the 90th installment of Rouzbeh Rashidi’s Homo Sapiens Project on the loop, will participate in “KINORAUM” exhibition at Zurich University of the Arts (ZHdK) from 4-12 May 2012. The opening reception time, date and address is mentioned in the poster below:

KINORAUM MIT HALBGEÖFFNETEM BILDSCHIRM

Von und mit: Shima Asa, Jann Clavadetscher, Aylin Filiz, Manuela Müller, Simon Rokyta, Rouzbeh Rashidi, Lea Schaffner, Joris Stemmle, Max Treier

Der Film, das Drehbuch. Ein offen gelegtes Geheimnis oder eine zusammengerollte Erzählung? In „Kinoraum mit halbgeöffnetem Bildschirm“ wird der Prozess zum Raum, das Kino zur Ausstellung, die Performance zum Setting. Es wird gearbeitet. Mit Licht und Sprache, Ton und Zeitleiste, Schnitt und Nachahmung. Der Blick durch den halbgeöffneten Bildschirm untersucht das Zusammenspiel von Publikum und Film an den Grenzen seiner medialen Formate.

Vernissage: Freitag 4. Mai 2012, 18 Uhr
Öffnungszeiten: Sa 5. Mai, 12 – 16 Uhr | Mo 7. Mai – Fr 11. Mai 16 – 20 Uhr
Finissage: Samstag, 12. Mai, 16 Uhr

Zürich, Sihlquai 125, 2. Stock, Galerie 201
Im Rahmen von Import / Export

More info HERE

Three installments of the Homo Sapiens Project (1,2,3) are available online for viewing.

Watch them HERE

HSP (1) by Rouzbeh Rashidi is part of Kassandre online film distribution now. Kassandre brings together filmmakers who made the choice to freely share their films, using copyleft licenses.

More info about Kassandre HERE & HERE

Bangkok-based cinephile and writer of the blog Limitless Cinema, Jit Phokaew, has reviewed six of the feature films by Rouzbeh Rashidi. The reviews can be red here:

Hades of Limbo (2012)

Jean Speck (1860-1933) (2011)

Immanence Deconstruction of Us (2011)

Filmore (2011)

tenebrous city & ill-lighted mortals (2011)

Cremation of an Ideology (2011)

More info about Limitless Cinema HERE

HADES OF LIMBO (2012, Rouzbeh Rashidi, 82 min, A++++++++++)

Things I find interesting in this film include:

1. One of the things I like very much in this film is that it arouses my imagination. HADES OF LIMBO unintentionally reminds me of the films MASUMI IS A PC OPERATOR (2001, Apichatpong Weerasethakul) and FUMIYO IS A DESIGNER (2001, Apichatpong Weerasethakul). Each of these two films of Apichatpong presents a face of a woman who shows no obvious emotions. The viewers must imagine by themselves the stories about these women or what these women are thinking about.

HADES OF LIMBO also has that effect on me. I felt a little bit bored at first watching the two long conversation scenes between a man and a woman and a long conversation scene between a man and a man in this film without hearing their dialogues, then I started imagining by myself what they are talking about, and then I got lost in my funny imaginations.

Rashidi once presented a long, silent, dialogue scene between a man and a woman in FILMORE (2011), but that scene doesn’t arouse my imagination, because of the two main differences between FILMORE and HADES OF LIMBO. The first difference is the fact that in FILMORE it is clear how the man and the woman are related to each other. They are lovers. So it doesn’t leave much space for me to imagine what they are talking about. But in HADES OF LIMBO, I don’t know how the characters in the film are related to one another. Are they lovers? Are they siblings? Are they friends? Is there a love triangle? So it leaves much space for me to imagine about their conversations.

The second difference is the fact that in FILMORE there is no interruption in the haircut scene, so the viewers’ eyes and thoughts are transfixed with the lovers. But in HADES OF LIMBO the conversation scenes are interrupted from time to time by scenes which have no clear connections to the conversation scenes, such as a scene of a window, a scene of teeth, a scene of a guy with a car, a scene of a woman searching something in her bag, a scene of the guy alone, a scene of a staircase in a building, a scene of a door, a scene of something blurred and unidentifiable, etc. This technique helps a little bit arouse my imaginations.

2. If I have to screen another film with HADES OF LIMBO, I may choose to screen it together with DOG SWEAT (2011, Hossein Keshavarz), because both films deal with the contemporary life of middle-class, young women and men in Iran. And both films seem to complement each other, like two sides of the same coin, because DOG SWEAT is narrative, while HADES OF LIMBO is non-narrative.

However, there’s another main difference between these two films. While the problems presented in DOG SWEAT is Iran-specific, what we see in HADES OF LIMBO is very universal. I don’t know if HADES OF LIMBO tries to criticize anything in Iran or not, but I find that the city in this film looks like many other cities in the world. I also find that the activities and the loneliness of the characters in HADES OF LIMBO are very universal.

Another different thing between these two films is the fact that while DOG SWEAT makes us focus on the problems of the characters or what they are talking about, HADES OF LIMBO makes us focus on the gestures of the characters. Because we can’t hear what they are talking about, we must focus instead on the faces and the movements of their hands or something like that. The focus on little gestures like this is something often overlooked in other films.

3.Why do I think some characters are lonely? It is because of some images and some scenes in this film, including the images of buildings in construction; the scene of a guy watching a television without talking to an old guy who may be his father; the scene of the guy climbing up a bridge staircase, then pausing, and coming back down, instead of reaching the bridge; the scene of the guy sitting alone on a bench, while his body is half-hidden from the viewers by a barren tree; the scene of this guy sitting alone on an old springboard; the scene of a guy loitering around his car; and the last scene of a guy lying on his bed, thinking about something for a long time.

4.The sound in this film is as intriguing as in other films of Rashidi. There are many scenes in this film in which I hear the sound of water splashing on shore, but there is neither water nor beach in sight. We only see an empty swimming pool above which a man and a woman is having a conversation. Does this sound of water splashing imply an undercurrent of feelings between the characters? Does it imply that the characters yearn for something out of reach?

I also like the ambient electronic music used in some scenes in this film very much.

5. I think the images in this film look a little bit different from other films of Rashidi, though they are as beautiful as in his other films. I think there are some scenes in this film in which we see a wider and deeper picture than in other films of Rashidi, but I’m not sure. I guess it may be because this film was shot by a different camera (Canon EOS 60D) or by a different cinematographer.

6. Rashidi’s website says that this film is directed remotely from Ireland over Skype. I think this may be the second film that I have ever seen which was directed remotely. The first film in this case that I saw is PEE PONG (2010, Wachara Kanha, 30 min), which was directed remotely by Wachara in Thailand. He told his friend in Hawaii to shoot this film for him via internet messages or something like that, if I understand it correctly. And the resulting film still has the obvious signatures of Wachara, such as its puzzling quality. HADES OF LIMBO looks like it was shot by Rashidi himself, too. If I didn’t read Rashidi’s website, I would have assumed that Rashidi was there to shoot this film by himself.

Talking about films directed remotely, I still haven’t seen YOL (1982), which was directed remotely by Yilmaz Güney while he was in prison.

7.This film also contains some puzzling scenes, which I think is a signature of Rashidi (with some exceptions, such as FILMORE). Puzzling things in this film include the shower scene and the scene of the black dog viewed from a hidden camera or something like that. What are the meanings of these scenes?

Originally published HERE

JEAN SPECK (1860-1933) (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi + Jann Clavadetscher, 70 min, A+++++++++++++++)

In the synopsis of this film, it says that Jean Speck opened Zurich’s first cinema. So I assume that Jean Speck was a real person who used to live in the past. However, this film is as far from being a biographical film as possible, despite its title. In a way, this film reminds me of THE DEATH OF MARIA MALIBRAN (1972, Werner Schroeter), which is one of my most favorite films of all time, because both films choose not to tell us the life of the titled character, but choose to present us many seemingly incoherent scenes which may or may not concern the titled character, and both films give me very powerful cinematic experiences.

Like THE DEATH OF MARIA MALIBRAN, JEAN SPECK (1860-1933) is another film which is beyond my ability to describe. I will not try to analyze this film, its structure, or its meanings. I just know that it overwhelms me with its visual and sound. All I can do is to try to elaborate a little bit about a few things I like in this film, though I know that my writing cannot adequately convey the powerful feelings I get from watching this film.

Things I find interesting in this film include:

1.The seemingly incoherent quality of the scenes. I don’t know what many scenes in this film mean. I don’t know how many scenes in this film concern Jean Speck. I’m not sure how each scene is related to any other scenes in the film. Having said that, I think many scenes in this film seem to be tangentially related to one another, or to cinema, or to shadow and light. And the seemingly incoherent quality is a good thing in my point of view. Like THE DEATH OF MARIA MALIBRAN, JEAN SPECK (1860-1933) puzzles me with scenes which are not clearly connected to one another, thus the film arouses my imagination. The film encourages me to try to connect the dot, to try to find the connections between each scene, or to imagine some connections by myself. The film doesn’t let me be a passive viewer.

In my imagination, I think like this:

1.1 The scenes which seem to be clearly connected to Jean Speck include the first scene which show a few viewers coming to sit in a theatre, and the scene which shows stills from old movies. There is also a strange sound in some scenes which make me think about the rolling of film in a projector or something like that.

1.2 The scenes which make me think about various aspects of cinema include the scene which shows a couple using a bathtub curtain as the screen; the scene in which some people shut the curtain to make the room go dark (so that the room can be fit for a film screening); and the scene which shows shadows of a man appearing repeatedly for ten minutes, while we hear various voices at the same time. These voices make me think about voices of the audience leaving a theatre, though we see the shadow of only one man.

There are also a scene of a guy driving like in an old film noir, a scene of a guy trying to fix a spotlight, a scene of a white screen, and a scene of a throbbing black screen. These scenes remind me of some aspects of cinema, too.

1.3 Most scenes in this film stun me with their shadow and light. In the first scene, we see light from a flashlight sweeping around the seats in a theatre from time to time. Each sweep lets us see how the number of the audience has changed or whether some viewers have changed their seats. Then we see some abstract white light moving in a black screen. We see shadow of a man appearing repeatedly for ten minutes. We see a guy driving a car at night, but we only see his face intermittently, because the lights from the street don’t reach his face from time to time. We see shadow of a camera, and light and shadow caused by a spotlight which a guy tries to fix for ten minutes. We see light from a flashlight held by someone who seems to search for something in an old room. We see a light moving around on a bed. We see views of trees at night passing by very fast. We see a guy walking in a quiet town at night. The lights in the street in this scene is beautiful. We see a guy looking at his reflection on a train window, or maybe he looks at the nighttime view outside the window. The light and shadow in all these scenes are stunning.

2.The sound. I think this film has the most complicated layers of sound among Rashidi’s films that I have seen. There are a few layers of sound presented at the same time in many scenes. One layer of sound is a sound effect which is very haunting. I don’t know how to describe this sound effect. I’m not sure if it can be called a droning sound or not. This droning sound is presented in many scenes, and in some scenes the intensity of this sound effect is gradually increasing until it reaches a certain point, but not “a climactic point”, because there seems to be no conventional climax in this film which tells us no story.

Apart from this haunting sound effect, I think I also heard the sound of an invisible musical instrument in a black screen scene, the sound of an invisible film projector, the sound of an invisible train in the male shadow’s scene, and the sound of an invisible water dripping in the spotlight-fixing scene. All these sounds of things which are not presented on the screen arouse my imagination very much. There is also a scene in which we hear the sound of things presented on the screen, but the sound of things presented in this scene is amplified a lot. It’s the scene in which a guy stands in a building, smoking and drinking. Each sound made by this guy or the liquor bottle or things in this scene is surrealistically loud.

3. The opacity. There are many scenes I like in this film, though I don’t know their meanings at all. For example:

3.1 The scene of white light moving in the darkness

3.2 The scene of a white screen in the beginning of the film, and the scene of a throbbing black screen at the end of the film

3.3 Is it the same guy whose shadow we see appearing repeatedly for ten minutes, the guy who drives the car, the guy who tries to fix a spotlight four times, the person whose legs we see on a bed, the guy who wakes up and goes down the staircase,  the guy who walks in a quiet town at night, and the guy in the train? How many guys have we seen in these scenes? Does it matter to know the answer? I guess it doesn’t matter.

3.4 Something in this film makes me think about a splitting existence/identity/consciousness or something like that. Because this film focuses on shadows, it makes me think about shadow as a kind of thing which splits from us. Apart from intriguing shadows in this film, there is a very intriguing scene of a guy waking up in his room, but he is presented as a ghost. His body is transparent. And the ghost even splits itself into two later. The scene of a guy staring at his reflection near the end of the film makes me think about the splitting of oneself, too. What does this scene mean? Unintentionally, somehow this scene reminds me of how I watch films nowadays. In the past, I saw many films in a big theatre like in the beginning of JEAN SPECK (1860-1933). At present, I watch many films, including this film, in a laptop in my own room. My laptop is even smaller than the train window that the guy stares at near the end of the film, and while I watch films on my laptop, I also see a faint reflection of myself appearing on the screen. Watching films nowadays means I watch both the films and my own reflection on the screen at the same time. It’s like what the guy does at the end of this film, watching both his reflection and the view outside from a small room.

3.5 Why do these films focus on legs and feet? We see four legs in a bathtub, two legs on a bed, and some legs of people walking in front of a building?

3.6 The legs-in-a-bathtub scene is very intriguing. What do these two people do in the bathtub? Are they making love with, playing with, or killing each other?

3.7 Why does the guy try to fix the spotlight four times?

4.I like the haunting quality and the grainy quality of this film very much.

5.The scene of a guy walking in a quiet town at night, and then smoking both inside and outside a building, reminds me of films by Bela Tarr and Fred Kelemen. The atmosphere in this scene is a little bit similar to the one in the films of these two masters. I also wonder if the scene of a guy driving is a tribute to Jean-Pierre Melville, while the scene of two ghosts waking is a tribute to Maya Deren or not.

6. If I have to screen other films together with JEAN SPECK (1860-1933), I will choose THE DEATH OF MARIA MALIBRAN and these films:

6.1 TWO TIMES IN ONE SPACE (1984, Ivan Ladislav Galeta, Croatia, 12 min)

The scene of the two ghosts waking up in JEAN SPECK reminds me of this Croatia film. This Croatia film is made by the double projections of a film called IN THE KITCHEN (1968, Nikola Stojanovi) on the same screen. The second projection is nine-second delay from the first projection. So on the same screen we see two similar activities, but one of them is nine second late from the other.

6.2 MA DANG BO SAI (1999, Phaisit Phanphruksachat)

There is an abstract quality in some scenes in JEAN SPECK, especially the scene which shows white light moving in the darkness, and some scenes which seem to look so closely at something that we can only see the texture of the things, but not the things themselves. This reminds me of MA DANG BO SAI, because many scenes in MA DANG BO SAI show us unidentifiable things, too.

6.3 CONTRE-JOUR (2009, Christoph Girardet + Matthias Müller)

The flickering of lights and shadows in JEAN SPECK reminds me of the flickering of lights in CONTRE-JOUR.

6.4 I FORGOT THE TITLE (2008, Christelle Lheureux)

I FORGOT THE TITLE also deals with the history and some special qualities of cinema in a very haunting and experimental way like JEAN SPECK.

In conclusion, JEAN SPECK (1860-1933) tells no story, but it gives us one of the most powerful presentations of recorded moving shadows, lights, and sounds. That is cinema.

Originally published HERE

IMMANENCE DECONSTRUCTION OF US (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi, Ireland, 70 min, A+++++++++++++++)

IMMANENCE DECONSTRUCTION OF US shows us found footage from home movies of a family, which I guess is an upper middle class family in Ireland. These home movies are punctuated from time to time by footage of landscapes in snow. I’m not sure what these snow scenes mean, but the snow falling in these scenes makes the scenes become more and more blurred. I guess the blurred quality in these scenes is also augmented by some visual effects. So for me, the blurred quality of the snow scenes reminds me of two things. The first thing is our own memory which keeps fading away as time goes by. The second thing is the film material which keeps deteriorating as times goes by. Some of us try to preserve our good memories of happy moments by making home movies or video diaries about them, but these home movies or video diaries can only keep these happy memories for a while. One day the film material will deteriorate completely. One day the digital data in the video will be completely destroyed. Time destroys everything, including our memories and everything that we use to preserve our memories. But it doesn’t matter. We don’t want our memories to last forever. We just want to preserve them at least for the rest of our lives, maybe for 50-60 years. So making home movies or video diaries is still useful for us, I think.

Sorry for not writing exactly about this beautiful film. I find myself unable to write a good review of any films any more. I just want to write about anything that comes up into my mind after watching this beautiful film. One of the first things that comes up into my mind after watching this film is that this film shows us both how great a home movie can be and how temporary a home movie is. One of the great things about the home movies shown in this film is that they allow the viewers to catch a glimpse of real life of ordinary upper middle class people many decades ago. But the home movies shown in this film will not last forever. The film material will keep on deteriorating. The pictures in these home movies will become more and more blurred. Everything will be buried in the end, including the people in the home movies, the home movies, my memory of this film, and myself.

Because the film doesn’t give us any information about the home movies, there are many questions that come up into my mind after watching this film, including:

1. I guess all the found footage used in this film belongs to an upper middle class family. Am I right? There is an old woman who keeps appearing in this film. I guess she is the matriarch of the family.

2.Who shot these home movies? Are there more than one person who shot these home movies? Is the director of these home movies a family member? Does the director of these home movies appear in the home movies too?

3.Is the director of these home movies still alive? Are the children in these home movies still alive? Is anyone in these home movies still alive?

4.When were these home movies shot? I guess they were shot in the 1950s, but I’m not sure.

5.How did Rashidi edit these home movies?

6.Do the home movies look grainy like how they appear in this film? Or did Rashidi make the home movies look more grainy in this film than what they really are?

However, all the questions above are not important. Knowing the answers of these questions is not important for me at all. What is important for me is  that I enjoy watching these home movies very much.

What do these home movies show? They show us scenes of a big family dinner, a child learning to walk (I like this scene very much. I really want to know if this child is still alive.), people going to a swimming pool, people playing tennis, a boat trip, birds flying, a little boy playing with a water hose, an old guy exercising, a car wreck, a foreign maid, golf playing, people walking their dogs, a trip to France, a parade of strange vehicles, a child in an amusement train, a kid driving a vehicle for kids, a child riding a bicycle, kite flying, people going to the beach, children playing with a toy gun, etc.

Things I find interesting in this film include:

1.It may be good that we don’t know the name of the people in these home movies, so our opinions on the home movies and this film will not be affected by things that these people do in real life. For example, if the family portrayed in these home movies are a family who used to support Nazi in WWII or something like that, our opinions towards these home movies and this film will be affected a lot by this fact. So I think it is interesting that we don’t know who these people really are. Because these people are anonymous, we may enjoy this film without worrying if we inadvertently sympathize with any wrong persons or not.

2.I am a little bit surprised that I can enjoy watching these rich people’s activities. The family in these home movies are much richer than mine, and are much warmer than mine, but I can still feel great watching them. I’m not sure why.

3.What is exactly the enjoyment that I get from watching these people’s activities? I think it is hard to describe this enjoyment. The enjoyment one gets from watching a home movie of a stranger is different from the enjoyment one gets from watching other kinds of movies, I think. Most home movies don’t tell an exciting story. They just present us a slice of an ordinary life of a stranger. But there is a strange kind of enjoyment in watching them. This enjoyment is a mix between the nostalgia, the poignant feelings when one thinks about the fact that people in these home movies may have died, and other feelings. This enjoyment also relies on the fact that the people in these home movies are real and their activities are real. The reality of these home movies creates a strange feeling in me.

4.I like the ending of this film very much. I find it extremely touching. Most parts of this film are silent, except the last five minutes of this film. In the last five minutes of this film, we hear some strange sound. I don’t know what this sound is, but it makes me imagine the footsteps of the Death which keeps approaching us. In these last five minutes we also see a home movie covered by whiteness and dirt on the screen. The whiteness which covers this home movie makes the home movie become extremely blurred. We cannot see any more what is happening on the screen. I’m not sure what the last section of this film means, but it touches me very much.

5.These home movies show us only happy moments in a family, like what most home movies do. I think this can be considered both a good point and a weak point of home movies in general. Because many home movies show us only happy moments of a family without any conflicts, home movies are different from mainstream films which focus on plots, conflicts, and resolution of conflicts. This is a good point of home movies, because they show us a part of life which is often overlooked by mainstream films. However, it is also a weak point, because the conflicts or the bad side of the family is not presented in the home movies. We only see the smiles of the people in IMMANENCE DECONSTRUCTION OF US.  We don’t see the tears. So while home movies are very interesting and help fulfill things which are overlooked by other films, other films also help fulfill things overlooked by home movies. When I write about this, I think of documentaries about a family made by the outsider of that family, for example, BROTHER’S KEEPER (1992, Joe Berlinger + Bruce Sinofsky), CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS (2003, Andrew Jarecki), GREY GARDENS (1975, Albert Maysles, David Maysles, Ellen Hovde, Muffie Meyer), LOVE AND DIANE (2002, Jennifer Dworkin),  A SHORT JOURNEY (2003, Tanon Sattarujawong), and A WEDDING IN RAMALLAH (2002, Sherine Salama).

However, sometimes we don’t need an outsider to portray both the good side and the bad side of a family. In some extraordinary cases, a family member can make a searing portrait of his/her own family, too, for example

THE MARINA EXPERIMENT (2009, Marina Lutz), SINK OR SWIM (1990, Su Friedrich), A STORY IN A CAR (2011, Wachara Kanha, 4 min), and TARNATION (2003, Jonathan Caouette).

6.Home movies in IMMANENCE DECONSTRUCTION OF US unintentionally make me think about the difference between home movies and video diaries. I think these two genres of films are roughly the same thing or are very connected to each other. But when someone mentions the words “home movies”, I often think about personal films made in the past and shot in 8mm format. When someone mentions the words “video diaries”, I often think about any kinds of moving images made nowadays which focus on the personal life of the filmmaker, excluding the ones made in film format.

Though I used to think of home movies and video diaries as roughly the same thing, watching IMMANENCE DECONSTRUCTION OF US makes me realize how home movies may be a little bit different from video diaries made nowadays. These differences include:

6.1 The money. Most home movies were made by middle class or upper middle class people, but you don’t have to be that rich to make video diaries nowadays, because you can use your mobile phone or use some program such as Socialcam to record your daily activities nowadays. I’m sure that in the near future someone will make a great arthouse film from materials found in Socialcam, like what Rashidi made from home movies in IMMANENCE DECONSTRUCTION OF US.

6.2 Many home movies focus on the family. Many video diaries focus on the filmmaker and friends. It may be because many home movies were made by the father of the family. These fathers who were in their 40s wanted to capture the activities of their kids and families. On the contrary, many filmmakers who make video diaries nowadays are in their teens or 20s. These video-diary makers want to capture the moments they spend with their friends before each of them goes on his/her own way.

The kind of video diaries that I like are the ones in which the filmmaker expresses his feelings to the video, for example, DIRTY PICTURES (2007, John Smith), A NEANGLY FAIRYTALE (BREAKDOWN: SIDE STORY) (2009, Nattaphan Boonlert, 21 min), and STRESSFUL 12 HOURS BEFORE THE DEADLINE (2010, Pitchayakorn Sangsuk, 10 min). Actually I’m not sure if these three films can be called video diaries or not, but I think of them as powerful video diaries.

However, there is also a group of “personal films” or video diaries made nowadays which focus on the family of the filmmakers. I think this group of personal films differ a little bit from home movies made in the past because these personal films look more formal instead of amateurish, and often involve some interviews with the filmmaker’s family members. Some of these personal films are listed in the link below:

HERE

7.Like many films shown in the 6th Bangkok Experimental Film Festival in early 2012, IMMANENCE DECONSTRUCTION OF US makes me think about the convergence between home movies/video diaries and experimental films. It is interesting to think about the differences between them and the similarities between them which link them together.

I think the differences between home movies and experimental films are the fact that many home movies were made by persons who didn’t know how to make films or didn’t know the rules of what to do when you are making films, whie many experimental films are made by persons who know very well about the rules of filmmaking. The similarity between them is the fact that both home movies and experimental films generally ignore the rules of filmmaking. Many home movies don’t have plots and focus on little things in life. That’s what many experimental films do, too.

Apart from IMMANENCE DECONSTRUCTION OF US, films that I like very much and seem to be the hybrids between home movies/video diaries and experimental films include:

7.1 THE ATMOSPHERE AT HOME AT 6AM (2011, Wachara Kanha, 16 min)

7.2 DESTINATION FINALE (2008, Philip Widmann, Germany/South Vietnam)

7.3 (DIS)CONTINUITY (2012, Wantanee Siripattananuntakul, video installation)

7.4 MV: EV’RY TIME WE SAY GOODBYE (1990, Ed Lachlan)

HERE

7.5 FILM FROM LAMPANG (around 1971, anonymous, Thailand)

7.6 GALLIVANT (1996, Andrew Kötting, UK)

7.7 THE GARDEN (2010, Ann Steuernagel, USA)

7.8 HERE COMES THE SUN (2008, Supakit Seksuwan, 7 min)

7.9 HOLD STILL (2009, Rachel Shearer, New Zealand)

7.10 I REMEMBER (2011, Arthawut Boonyuang, 90 min)

7.11 LIFE CONTINUED (1966, Zhuang Ling, Taiwan)

7.12 LOVE ACTUALLY (2008, Gun Sangkaew, 9 min)

7.13 ME AND MY VIDEO DIARY (2010, Tani Thitiprawat)

7.14 MORNING (2010, Kok Siew Wai, Malaysia)

7.15 MY MOTHER AND HER DARKNESS

(2008, Wiwat Lertwiwatwongsa, 7 min) HERE

7.16 MY ROOM AND I (2010, Ka-nes Boonyapanachoti, 20 min)

7.17 A PLACE OF DIFFERENT AIR (2008, Chaloemkiat Saeyong, 24 min)

7.18 POISON 4: THE MOST BASIC ANSWER IS THAT I LOVE FILMS A LOT (2011, Eakarach Monwat, 21 min)

7.19 RAINING IN THE NIGHT (2008, Supachai Saiwirat, 6 min)

7.20 RESIST (2009, Teeranit Siangsanoh, 54 min)

7.21 SLEEPING BEAUTY (2006, Chulayarnnon Siriphol, 40 min)

7.22 SUNDAY (2010, Siwapond Cheejedreiw, 24 min)

7.23 SWING (2011, Weerapong Wimuktalop, 30 min)

7.24 TOTAA (2008, Akashdeep Sing, Malaysia, 4 min)

7.25 TRAIN OF SHADOWS (1996, José Luis Guerín, Spain)

7.26 TWO CORONATIONS (2011, Stephen Connolly, UK)

7.27 VACANCY (1999, Matthias Müller)

7.28 WINDOW WATER BABY MOVING (1962, Stan Brakhage)

However, I still haven’t seen the personal films of Jonas Mekas, Jennifer Montgomery (ART FOR TEACHERS OF CHILDREN), and Anne Charlotte Robertson (FIVE YEARS DIARY).  I hope to have a chance to see them in the future.

• Originally published HERE

FILMORE (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi, Ireland, 60 min, A+++++)

Like CREMATION OF AN IDEOLOGY, FILMORE is a film that I like much much more in my second viewing than in my first viewing of the film. In my first viewing of the film, FILMORE ranks as the most difficult film I have ever seen. “Difficult” here doesn’t mean “bad” or “difficult to understand”. It means difficult to sit through. I think the difficulty is partly because I didn’t know what to expect or what would happen in this film. In my first viewing of the film, I didn’t know how long the haircut scene would last. I was very anxious to know if there would be anything important or anything dramatic happening in the scene. I didn’t know what I should pay attention to in the scene. I wondered if there would be a bomb hidden in a garbage can, if the woman would cut off the man’s ear, or slit the man’s throat, or if the viewpoint of the film is the viewpoint of a sniper who would shoot these two people at the end of the film. Because I didn’t know what I should pay attention to in my first viewing of the film, I found this film the most difficult film to sit through in my whole life. But in my second viewing of the film, I know what to expect from this film. I know there will not be any other scenes in the film except the haircut scene. I know what will happen next. All my anxiety is gone. I can allow myself to fall asleep from time to time watching this film, instead of feeling stressful watching it like in my first viewing.

I give A++++++ to this film not because I get the ultimate pleasure from watching it. I just like its concept–trying to make a romantic film from watching a woman cutting a man’s hair, observing their physical touches, but remain a little bit detached from the couple for the whole hour. Its concept is very interesting. I don’t know what Rashidi wants from this film. If he wants the audience to feel erotic and romantic by an uncompromisingly minimal film like this, I think it is a failed experiment at least for a gay audience whose life is filled with hatred like me. But I think it is still an interesting experiment nonetheless. But if Rashidi doesn’t want the audience to feel romantic or erotic, this cannot be called a failed experiment.

I describe myself as “a gay audience whose life is filled with hatred”, because I think it is one of the reasons why I feel this film is difficult. I don’t know what a straight man or a woman will feel watching this film. They may feel a little bit erotic watching the man’s and the woman’s body touching each other from time to time. These straight viewers may feel romantic when they see the man and the woman kissing each other. I don’t know. I just know that I don’t feel erotic or romantic watching it, and I suspect that my sexual orientation may play a part in it.

I also think my life story may play a part, too. I rarely have romantic experiences in my life. My life is filled with hatred, and that’s why I find it difficult to identify with some romantic gay films such as THE ANGELIC CONVERSATION (1985, Derek Jarman, A+). There are many gay kissing scenes in THE ANGELIC CONVERSATION. I like them a lot, but somehow I still feel a little bit detached from these gay kissing scenes. It is much easier for me to identify with the angriness portrayed in JUBILEE (1978, Derek Jarman) or THE GARDEN (1990, Derek Jarman). So apart from my sexual orientation, I think the genre of FILMORE is also one of the reasons why I don’t enjoy the film that much. FILMORE seems to belong to the romantic genre, but my life story doesn’t allow me to identify myself with most characters in this genre.

But I guess Rashidi didn’t intend to emphasize the erotic or the romantic quality of FILMORE in the first place. What is the most important thing for him here is the minimalistic quality. Hence, there is no music in this film. Watching FILMORE unintentionally reminds me how great the soundtracks of CREMATION OF AN IDEOLOGY and TENEBROUS CITY & ILL-LIGHTED MORTALS are. The soundtracks in these two films help build the atmosphere very much and thus chase the boredom away. The music would have helped build the romantic atmosphere and chase the boredom away too in FILMORE, but there is no music in the film. And we can’t even hear the dialogues of the couple. The minimalistic quality of FILMORE have two important effects on me: it makes the film boring, but at the same time it makes the film an interesting experiment. In a way it reminds me of LUNG NEAW VISITS HIS NEIGHBOURS (2011, Rirkrit Tiravanija, 154 min, A++++++++++). LUNG NEAW VISITS HIS NEIGHBOURS is boring from time to time, but it is interesting as a film which may or may not parody the slowness, the comtemplative quality, or the heavily atmospheric quality of contemporary arthouse films. I don’t think FILMORE is a parody, but it resembles LUNG NEAW VISITS HIS NEIGHBOURS in the way that it “intentionally” sits on the edge of boredom.  I don’t think the boredom in these two films come from the ineptitude of the directors, or come from the low taste of the audience, but I think it comes from some experiments on the boundary of cinema intended by the directors. I still haven’t watched any films directed by Andy Warhol, though. So I cannot compare the slight boredom of FILMORE with legendary films such as SLEEP (1963, 321 min). I also haven’t seen POSSIBLE LOVERS (2008, Raya Martin, 95 min), which I think should be screened together with FILMORE.

Possible Lovers (2008)

I also ask myself why I found it very hard to watch FILMORE in my first viewing. I have seen so many films which are extremely slow, extremely contemplative, in which nothing dramatic happens. Why do I love these kinds of films so much and get the ultimate pleasure watching them, but not from FILMORE? Why do I find it extremely easy to attune my wavelength to these kinds of films, especially ZOETROPE, but not to FILMORE? I think the answers may include these things: the closed space, the detachment, the hour-long duration, the absence of the space for imagination/the absence of trance-like quality. These four qualities in FILMORE make it difficult for me to sit through the film.

These four qualities are the things that set FILMORE apart from other extremely slow films that I love. For example:

1. Because the story of FILMORE takes place in a closed space which looks a little bit dirty or ugly, it is hard to stare at this space for an hour. This makes it different from such films as RUHR (2009, James Benning) or YOU HAVE TO WAIT, ANYWAY (2007, Nawapol Thamrongrattanarit, 22 min), in which we stare at the sky for 20-40 minutes, or such films as PSYCHOHYDROGRAPHY (2010, Peter Bo Rappmund), in which we stare at the sea for 10 minutes, or such films as PERU TIME (2008, Chaloemkiat Saeyong, 18 min), in which we stare at an open field for 18 minutes.

2+3. The detachment between the characters and the viewers may be one of the reasons why I don’t enjoy FILMORE that much. FILMORE doesn’t allow us to really get to know the characters. The film doesn’t allow us to hear the dialogues or know the backgrounds of the characters, thus I feel detached from the characters. I think the detachment is one of the reasons apart from the closed space, because I enjoy staring at some closed spaces in other films such as AFTERNOON TIMES (2005, Tossapol Boonsinsukh, 90 min). In AFTERNOON TIMES, there is a 15-minute-long scene in which the camera doesn’t move. In that scene we watch a female restaurant owner slowly picking up things in her very small restaurant. That scene also takes place in a closed, small space, but that scene makes me want to cry. Why do the closed space in AFTERNOON TIMES make me feel very different from the closed space in FILMORE? The first answer is because I can totally identify with the character in AFTERNOON TIMES. I understand the feelings and emotions of the heroine in AFTERNOON TIMES very well, so though I have to stare at the closed space in AFTERNOON TIMES for a long time, my feelings and emotions still move a lot like the heroine. But I feel detached from the characters in FILMORE.

The second answer may be the duration. If the haircut scene in FILMORE lasts 15 minutes like the scene in AFTERNOON TIMES, certainly I will not feel a little bit bored like this.

To give another comparison about detachment/involvement with the characters, I would like to compare FILMORE with HEREMIAS (2006, Lav Diaz, 540 min). In HEREMIAS, there’s a two-hour-long segment which also tests the endurance of the viewers a little bit like FILMORE. It’s the segment in which Heremias is hiding in the grass, secretly listening to a group of youngsters who plan to rape and kill a girl. However, I find it easier to sit through that segment in HEREMIAS to FILMORE, because I feel involved with Heremias. I understand the feelings of Heremias in that scene. So the involvement with the characters helps chase the boredom away.

4. The absence of space for imagination/the absence of trance-like quality. I think this may be only me, but not for other viewers. I think each viewer has different things which can arouse his/her own imaginations or different things which can put them in a trance. I don’t find the things which can arouse my own imaginations or put me in a trance in FILMORE, but I think some viewers may find this kind of things in it.

Some extremely slow or undramatic films give me the ultimate pleasure because they put me in a trance, for example, WINDOW (1999, Apichatpong Weerasethakul). I can stare at the window in WINDOW, or in ZOETROPE, or in THE NAKORN ASAJARN TRILOGY: NIGHTMARE (2011, Wachara Kanha), or in PASSING THROUGH THE NIGHT (2011, Wattanapume Laisuwanchai), or in AGATHA AND THE UNLIMITED READINGS (1981, Marguerite Duras) for many minutes and don’t feel bored at all. Windows in these films can put me in an extremely blissful trance, and I don’t know why.

Electronic music and some sounds are ones of the things which can arouse my imaginations a lot. That is why I like A LISTENER’S TALE (2007, Arghya Basu, India, 76 min) and EMPLOYEES LEAVING THE LUMIERE FACTORY (2010, Chaloemkiat Saeyong) very much, though these two films can be described as extremely slow. A LISTENER’S TALE presents us many scenes of beautiful nature with electronic music. That is enough for me to imagine many many things by myself and enjoy the imaginations in my own head. EMPLOYEES LEAVING THE LUMIERE FACTORY lets us stare at the darkness for a long time, but it has some strange sounds in it which arouse my imaginations a lot.

I also would like to compare FILMORE with NEVER CONGREGATE, NEVER DISREGARD (2007, Arin Rungjang, video installation with two channels). In one of the channels in this video installation, we see a man digging something for 50 minutes, but it is not boring for me to watch this video for 50 minutes, because there are some texts running at the bottom of the screen, and this stream-of-consciousness texts arouse my imaginations very much. So that’s why I feel very captivated watching NEVER CONGREGATE, NEVER DISREGARD, but don’t feel the same way watching FILMORE.

(The two video channels of NEVER CONGREGATE, NEVER DISREGARD are now available at Vimeo. Unfortunately, the texts in the digging channel are not available. I don’t know why. I think the text is the most important thing in this video installation:

HERE

HERE

I wrote ” each viewer has different things which can arouse his/her own imaginations”, because I know about it from my conversations with cinephile friends. The electronic music in A LISTENER’S TALE and PSYCHOHYDROGRAPHY doesn’t arouse my friends’ imaginations, though it arouses mine. My friend Wiwat Lertwiwatwongsa likes the faces of people in TIME WITHIN TIME (2009, Menno Otten, Netherlands, A+) a lot. I guess the faces of people in TIME WITHIN TIME arouse his imaginations much more than mine. Thus, I guess there must be some viewers who find something very captivating in FILMORE. This film may not be exactly my cup of tea, but I’m sure some will like it a lot.

In conclusion, though I find FILMORE a little bit boring, and may be fit to be shown in a gallery than in a theatre, I still give it A++++++ because I like its concept very much. It is different from other films I have ever seen, and I think it is good that sometimes I find a film with a kind of wavelength I have never known before and I have to find a way to attune my wavelength to it.

I remember that when I saw CALM REIGNS THROUGHOUT THE LAND (1976, Peter Lilienthal) about 15 years ago. I couldn’t attune my wavelength to it. The film has some kinds of wavelength I had never known before. I didn’t like it at all after I saw it. However, after a while I found this film very memorable, and my fondness for this film keeps increasing every time I think of it.

Who knows if FILMORE will turn out to be one of my most favorite films of all time in the future? I may find it a bit boring now, but my fondness for many films changes with time. FILMORE may be a film which is a little bit ahead of its time for me. Hopefully, my wavelength will catch up with it soon.

• Originally published HERE

TENEBROUS CITY & ILL-LIGHTED MORTALS (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi, 66 min, A++++++++++)

Things I find interesting in this film include:

1. I think it is like an unintentional sequel of A NOCTURNE (2007, Bill Mousoulis, Australia), which deals with vampires. The vampires in A NOCTURNE are like a group of artists who cannot fit in with the society of ordinary people. The protagonist of TENEBROUS CITY & ILL-LIGHTED MORTALS is a little bit similar to the vampires in A NOCTURNE, because he only roams the streets at night. He seems to miss the daily activities or daily life of ordinary people, but he cannot participate in this daily life. The other thing which makes him look like a vampire is the fact that he seems not to be able to enter a building without the invitation. There’s a scene in which he tries to enter a building, but he can only enter it while his hand is still opening the door. His hand cannot let go of the door. I’m not sure why he behaves like that in that scene. There’s also a scene in which he enters a building because there’s a “welcome” sign in front of the building. There are also many scenes of houses in the daytime, but we can only look at these houses from the outside. There are many cages in the windows of these houses, and these cages seem to emphasize the alienation of the protagonist from the society.

2. I like the alienation of the protagonist very much. It makes me think about myself. The protagonist in this film is very lonely, but the film is not too romantic. There are some romantic feelings in this film, but not too much. The romantic feelings are presented by some stills of a woman and some scenes of a woman and a man. These stills and scenes seem to represent the romantic yearning of the protagonist, but what is important is that the protagonist seems to only observe them from afar, and not try to intervene in the woman’s life or try to destroy the relationship of this woman and her man. I like it very much that the protagonist behaves like that. He wants something, but he will not do any people any harm just because he wants something which may be out of his reach. The protagonist seems to communicate with some strangers from time to time, but it results in nothing meaningful.

3.TENEBROUS CITY & ILL-LIGHTED MORTALS may be one of the easiest feature films of Rashidi to watch. It is different from other feature films of Rashidi because the camera moves a lot in this film, while the camera is more static in other films of Rashidi. The storyline in this film is more easily to follow compared to some other films of Rashidi. I think it is as easy to watch as BIPEDALITY, because both films have main characters which lead us through the storyline. There are also the insertion of atmospheric scenes in both BIPEDALITY and TENEBROUS CITY & ILL-LIGHTED MORTALS, but while the atmospheric scenes in BIPEDALITY are enigmatic and defy explanation, the atmospheric scenes/stills in TENEBROUS CITY & ILL-LIGHTED MORTALS are much easier to be explained. It is easy for the viewers to think of these atmospheric scenes as the representation of the yearning of the protagonist.

4. I like the lights and the lighting in TENEBROUS CITY & ILL-LIGHTED MORTALS. There are various kinds of lights in this film, and I like them all. I like the neon lights or fluorescent lights in the streets at night very much. The lights on the streets at night in this film reminds me of such films as ELEVATOR TO THE GALLOWS (1958, Louis Malle), SHADOWS (1959, John Cassavetes), THE BREAD OF THOSE EARLY YEARS (1962, Herbert Vesely), ROUGH NIGHT (2001, Samart Imkham), and FIREFLIES (2005, Chawit Waewsawangwong), because these films show us extremely beautiful neon lights, too. The difference between TENEBROUS CITY & ILL-LIGHTED MORTALS and other films mentioned is that Rashidi might not intend to emphasize on the beauty of the neon lights that much. The neon lights in this film are not embellished. They look beautiful but a little bit realistic at the same time. I think the beauty of these neon lights come partly from the fact that the night scenes in this film are quite atmospheric. Because many scenes in this film don’t try to tell a story, but present the atmosphere and the loneliness of the protagonist, so things in this film subsequently look more beautiful than when they are there to tell a story or to support a story.

I like the sunlight in this film, too. Like the neon lights, the sunlight in this film is not embellished, but it looks beautiful because we know it is out of reach of the protagonist. It looks beautiful because we look at it through the eyes of the protagonist and understand how precious it has become. The film makes me aware how beautiful some ordinary things in daily life are. The reflection of sunlight on the wall, the green grass in the sunlight, the talking with friends–all these things that we may take for granted suddenly look precious when we look at them through the eyes of the protagonist. However, I think this may not be the main theme of this film, and Rashidi dealt with this thing before in ZOETROPE, which is one of the most beautiful films ever made about ordinary things in daily life.

5.There are many interesting techniques used in this film, including the flickering lights around the protagonist, the violent shaking of the camera in some scenes, the sudden switch from a still in landscape format into a still in portrait format, etc. I don’t know the meanings of these techniques in this film, but I think they are thought-provoking.

6. The music in this film is very good. It is brooding in some scenes and helps emphasize the vampire-like quality of the protagonist.

7.The scene of a woman lying on a bench with her two feet lifted up is quite memorable. It is as beautiful as a classic painting.

• Originally published HERE

CREMATION OF AN IDEOLOGY (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi, 62 min, A+++++)

Things I find interesting in this film include:

1. I couldn’t quite attune my wavelength to this film in my first viewing. I found it a little bit more difficult to watch than the first six feature films of Rashidi. There are many long static scenes in this film, and these scenes are not as beautiful as the sceneries in BIPEDALITY, not as haunting as the scenes in REMINISCENCES OF YEARNING, not as friendly, breezy, or sublime as the ones in ZOETROPE, and not relying on monologue as the one in CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS. Because of that, scenes in CREMATION OF IDEOLOGY become more challenging than other films mentioned.

However, I found it much easier to watch when I watch it for the second time. I think it is partly because now I know what to expect from this film. My frustration that I had in my first viewing of the film may stem from my “not knowing”. I got frustrated at first because I didn’t know what happens in the film, where I should pay attention to, how long this scene will last, what the meaning of this scene is, what is really important in this scene, etc.

In most mainstream films, you won’t get frustrated like this. You understand the story. You know what is happening in a scene. You know that a scene will end when there’s nothing important to tell you any more, etc. Watching a mainstream film is like walking in a narrow path. You know that you must walk in that narrow path because there are no other paths to choose from.

But watching CREMATION OF AN IDEOLOGY for the first time made me feel like walking in a dark labyrinth. I didn’t know where to go next. I didn’t know which way to choose. I didn’t know if I had chosen the right way or not. I didn’t know if I had overlooked something important or not. I couldn’t connect the scenes in the film together. I felt quite lost, like in a labyrinth.

There’s no frustration like this when I watched it for the second time. It’s like entering the same labyrinth for the second time, and now knowing that this labyrinth will not kill you. I felt much more relaxed watching it. Maybe I tried to use my brain too much when I watched it for the first time. Maybe I tried to “interpret” the scenes too much in my first viewing. In my second viewing, I can watch a woman asleep for a long time with relaxed mind, because now I know how long this scene will be, because now I know I don’t have to pay attention to every second in this scene or to every minute detail in this scene, because now I know I don’t have to decode this scene or explain the symbols in this scene or something like that.

2. CREMATION OF AN IDEOLOGY makes me feel as if I am watching and I am being watched at the same time. This film contains some scenes in which people stare at the camera, thus these characters make the impression as if they are looking at the audience. This is one of very few films in this world that let me “watch people watching”.

CREMATION OF AN IDEOLOGY may be one of very few films in this world that is a little bit more fit to be watched on a computer notebook than in a big theatre, because I watched this film on a computer notebook, and it gives me the illusion that some characters are watching me via their webcams at the same time. However, I haven’t seen this film on a big screen, so I cannot say for sure that watching it on a notebook is “better”. I think I should just say that watching this film on a notebook could give the viewers some uncanny feelings that they won’t have by watching it on a big screen.

This film also makes me feel as if I am a secret agent or a hacker who can hack into other people’s computers and secretly use the webcam to look at the faces of the computer users. However, I’m not sure if the effects above is what Rashidi intends for this film or not. I think he might not intend to make the viewers of this film feel as if they are really skyping with the characters in the film, because if he had really emphasized on this effect, he would not have made this film in black-and-white and would not have made the pictures in this film look grainy and gloomy like this. He would have made the pictures in this film look more realistic. Whatever his intention is, I still like it very much that the characters in this film stare at the audience.

3.So what is happening in this film? I’m not sure. I think the film is about daily activities of a couple and their webcam communications with other people. The man wakes up before his wife in the morning. He takes a bath. His wife puts on some makeup. They are communicating with their friends and family via webcam. They go to bed at night. The scenes of the couple’s daily activities are superimposed or interrupted by the scenes showing what their friends do in front of the webcams. Some friends dance in front of the webcam. Some play a prank. There are also some enigmatic scenes in this film, such as the penultimate scene in which a ghost apparition appears at a stair or something like that. There are also many scenes showing building rooftops.

4.Though I almost never use webcam before, CREMATION OF AN IDEOLOGY somehow makes me think about the role of internet in my daily life. The second scene in this film shows the man opening a window. I don’t know what this scene means, but it makes me think about the internet as another window in my room, a window which allows me to look at the whole wide world or communicate with the whole wide world. Like the couple in this film, it is easy for me now to chat with a friend who lives in other countries and enjoy some funny activities together. Internet has become an essential part of my daily life and my life. I could not connect with friends in other countries like this fifteen years ago.

But am I happier now than fifteen years ago? I’m not sure. In this film, we know that the couple enjoy using the webcam, but we don’t know if the husband and wife are happy together or not. At the end of the film, the man opens a curtain in a classroom and shuts down the webcam at the back of a classroom. I don’t know what this scene means. But I know that I have been using computer too much lately and intend to use it less in the future.

1. Originally published HERE

Rouzbeh Rashidi was asked by cinephile “Grey Daisies” to contribute to his MUBI list “TEN FILMS THAT SAVED YOUR LIFE”. Some of the filmmakers contributed are Phil Solomon, Nina Menkes, Caveh Zahedi, Su Friedrich, Mark Rappaport, Jenni Olson and others.

You can read his and many other interesting film lists HERE

Rouzbeh Rashidi is one of the filmmakers participating in the The Forgotten Film Gallery. The Forgotten Film Gallery is a documentary film project and video art installation which plans to showcase a collection of films dealing with interpretations of the forgotten and the indefinite time period during and after the present. The goal for the Forgotten Film Gallery is to unite the new with the old Link the past to the future using the remoteness of the desert as the gallery space and the world wide web as a platform to distribute the documentary freely with the public.

More info HERE & HERE

Rouzbeh Rashidi has been asked to contribute to the “2011 World Poll” of “Revista Lumière” film magazine, for compilation of the most exciting films or cinematic events of 2011.

You can read his and loads of other lists by very interesting people HERE

Read Maximilian Le Cain‘s list HERE

Read Donal Foreman‘s list HERE

More info about the ”Revista Lumière” film magazine HERE

Richie Abraham is an Indian cinephile and occasional writer who lives and works in Gurgaon. Abraham has written a review on HE (2012).

Read the review HERE

Contact Richie Abraham on richiecseiitb@gmail.com

Blogger NUTS4R2 has reviewed HE (2012).

The review can be red HERE

More info about HE HERE

Homo Sapiens Project (24) will play in the next Live@8, Bar 8 The Docks Galway, Wednesday 21st March at 8pm.

“Container 1″ curated by Anthony Kelly & David Stalling Featuring a selection of short film and video works by: Freya Birren, Rachael Corcoran, Gordon Delap, Paul Hallahan, Anthony Kelly & David Stalling, Maciek Klich, Tilman Küntzel, Alan Lambert, Rouzbeh Rashidi, Patricia Klich, Irene Murphy with a live sound improvisation set by Anthony Kelly & David Stalling.

More info HERE

On 20th of March 2012, 8 PM, a programme of the short films of Experimental Film Society will be screening at the Sample-Studios 3rd Floor Former Government Buildings Sullivan’s Quay Cork.

The scene (7) of The Last of Deductive Frames is completed.

Watch the Scene (7) HERE

The Last of Deductive Frames Vimeo Channel

(An)Other Irish Cinema & Friends film screenings in the Philippines in March 2012:

The format of the screenings is 2 x 2 hour programmes which will screen on March 26th at the University of the Philippines Film Institute. The first programme is of work by (An)Other Irish Cinema. The second is of contemporary Irish experimental film curated by (An)Other Irish Cinema.

Programme 1: (An)Other Irish Cinema

More info HERE

10 / 03 / 2012 – 1P.M @ Chester Beatty Library, Dublin Castle, Dublin 2.

Rashidi continues his collaboration with actor James Devereaux in this unsettling and ultimately touching portrait of an isolated actor possessed by film history.

Trailer can be watched HERE

The scene (6) of The Last of Deductive Frames is completed.

Watch the Scene (6) HERE

The Arts Council of Ireland backed experimental feature film HE (2012) by Rouzbeh Rashidi is now completely finished and ready for festivals and screenings. This two hours dream-like film explores the theme of suicide in a very abstract audio visual approach. The production began in September 2011 in Dublin and finished in February 2012 in Cork and it is featuring:

James Devereaux, Cillian Roche, Maximilian Le Cain, George Hanover & John McCarthy.

Soundscape composed especially for the film by Mick O’Shea & Emil Nerstrand.

Trailer can be watched HERE

For complete info about HE please its website HERE

Posters for feature films directed by Rouzbeh Rashidi, Graphic design by Pouya Ahmadi.

More info Pouya Ahmadi Website

The production of HE (2012) is now completed. The film is in post-production stage and will be completed very soon. Rouzbeh Rashidi is editing HE at the moment.

See the new screen grabs, behind the scene photographs and new teaser HERE

The four hours collaborative experimental feature film entitled “Persistencies of Sadness & Still Days” by Rouzbeh Rashidi & Maximilian Le Cain is currently in production in Cork city. Part minimalist fiction film, part video diary and experimental collage. There are only two rules in this open and inevitably sprawling venture: the final running time must amount to four hours and both Rashidi and Le Cain must appear on screen.

MINDSCAPES is a film event which strives to bring together established and emerging artists from around the world. Filmmakers Cassandra Sechler and Ginnetta Correli have curated the MINDSCAPES show in order to create exposure of dark, personal films often ignored by the commercial world. Works selected represent a critical movement happening under the belly of mainstream culture.

HSP (2) will play 8pm Sat Feb 11th 2012 @ the ATA (Artists’ Television Access, 992 Valencia Street (at 21st), San Francisco, CA 94110).

More info HERE

The scene (5) of The Last of Deductive Frames is completed.

Watch the Scene (5) HERE

As part of Rouzbeh Rashidi’s upcoming residency at The Guesthouse, Cork, he will be presenting three screenings each consisting of one of his features and one of Maximilian Le Cain shorter works:

Thursday 2nd February 2012, 8pm

Ten Minutes Isn’t Worth a Dream (2010) 25min by Maximilian Le Cain
Bipedality (2010) 67min by Rouzbeh Rashidi

Wednesday 8th February 2012, 8pm

Private Report (2009) 36min by Maximilian Le Cain
Cremation of an Ideology (2011) 62min by Rouzbeh Rashidi

Wednesday 15th February 2012, 8pm

… And The Poor Bird Died (2009) 10min by Maximilian Le Cain
tenebrous city and ill-lighted mortals (2011) 66min by Rouzbeh Rashidi

For more details HERE

The scene (4) of The Last of Deductive Frames is completed.

Experimental Film Society is an independent, not-for-profit film production company specialising in experimental, independent and no/low budget filmmaking. It was founded in 2000 in Tehran, Iran. Its aim is to produce and promote films by its members. Experimental Film Society unites works by a dozen filmmakers scattered across the globe, whose films are distinguished by an uncompromising, no-budget devotion to personal, experimental cinema. Experimental Film Society is responsible for rescuing and preserving many of its members’ films, which otherwise might have been lost forever. All the materials and films in this society are original and had made by EFS filmmakers. The current office of EFS is in Dublin / Ireland.

More info: www.experimentalfilmsociety.com

Now we are kicking off with two screenings over the month of March, including our first presentation in Chester Beatty Library, Dublin.

10 / 03 / 2012 – 1P.M @ Chester Beatty Library, Dublin Castle, Dublin 2.

Screening of contemporary films by Iranian filmmakers of EFS, with Q&A session afterwards. Screenings will include works by Bahar Samadi, Kamyar Kordestani, Hamid Shams Javi, Pouya Ahmadi and Rouzbeh Rashidi.  Also a short film by guest filmmakers, Arash Khakpour & Arash Radkia.

More info: www.cbl.ie

20 / 03 / 2012 – 8PM @ Sample-Studios 3rd Floor Former Government Buildings Sullivan’s Quay Cork.

Screenings will include works by Bahar Samadi, Kamyar Kordestani, Hamid Shams Javi, Rouzbeh Rashidi, Michael Higgins, Dean Kavanagh, Esperanza Collado and Maximilian Le Cain.

More info: www.sample-studios.com

The scene (3) of The Last of Deductive Frames is completed.

Watch the Scene (3) HERE

The Last of Deductive Frames Vimeo Channel

While in Cork in February 2012 for the residency in The Guesthouse, Rouzbeh Rashidi and Maximilian Le Cain will be making a four hour experimental feature film. Details and all the relevant information about the film will announced soon.

The Guesthouse is a visual artist-led initiative whose objective is to create a place for production, meeting and cross-practice peer exchange that includes various forms of public discourse and encounter.

Rouzbeh Rashidi will enjoy a 3 week residency at The Guesthouse in February 2012, for:

1_Completing the feature film HE

2_Recording soundscape for the film with Mick O’Shea

3_Also he will present a number of screenings in order to give a fuller understanding of the unusual ideas and techniques he employs in his work, and to create a dialogue around them.

More info HERE

JIT PHOKAEW is a Bangkok-based cinéphile and writer of the blog Limitless Cinema. PHOKAEW listed Zoetrope (2011) as best foreign film of the year in the Senses of Cinema World poll 2011:

Word Poll 2011

Watch the trailer HERE

The feature film Hades of Limbo (2012) is completed. Rouzbeh Rashidi wrote the precise and definite instruction of the shooting in Tehran, passed it on to Kamyar Kordestani and Hamid Shams Javi and directed the film remotely using Internet from Ireland. The result is a heavily visual, abstract experimental film that combines very along takes with the sulky urban landscapes, which explores the hugely opaque characters. Featuring: Hamid Shams Javi, Mahdi Safarali, Lena Khaghani & Mehdi Shafeie

This is collaboration between experimental film society and Stutter Film.

Trailer can be watched HERE

The 8th installment of Homo Sapiens Project will play from 18th to 20th of January, in the Joinery as part of Four is to Three (Selected Stories Programme Part Five). Four is to Three is a series of screenings and talks based around works that utilise, challenge and subvert a shared cultural and historical memory that has increasingly become framed in the technical and narrative apparatus of the moving image. The show also features works by Michael Higgins, Christopher O’Neill and Sylvia Schedelbauer.

Thursday/Friday 19/20th 12-6pm The Joinery, Arbour Hill, Stoneybatter, D7

Curated by Tadhg O’Sullivan. Four is to Three is part of the Selected Stories Programme curated by the Joinery and supported by the Arts Council.

More info The Joinery

The scene (2) of The Last of Deductive Frames is completed.

Watch the Scene (2) HERE

“The Last of Deductive Frames” is a collaborative omnibus feature film being made gradually over time by the members of Experimental Film Society. It is a film that starts but never finishes. Each filmmaker will contribute a ten minute section to it. These sections will be assembled in the order in which they are completed. This constantly growing work will initially be for the internet, but will eventually be presented on the big screen. The only strict rule at the outset is that each segment must last exactly ten minutes, although further rules might be added as the film develops. “The Last of Deductive Frames” is a living cinematic organism designed to forget its creators as it evolves.

Watch the Scene (1) HERE

The 70th installment of Rouzbeh Rashidi’s ongoing cinematic project “Homo Sapiens Project” is completed. This 21 minutes short film was shot in the deserts of Saveh, a city located around 100 km southwest of Tehran. The film features Ehsan Safarpour who frequently appeared in the early films of Rouzbeh Rashidi.

More info about HSP HERE

Experimental Conversations is Cork Film Centre’s online journal of experimental film, art cinema and video art. Rouzbeh Rashidi interviewed by Experimental Conversations Magazine in December 2011.

Read the interview HERE

The experimental feature film “Bard Is a Thing of Dread (2012)” by Rouzbeh Rashidi, featuring Reza Rashidi is now completed. The idea of this film was conceived in 2009 and only realized in 2012. This grim nightmare-like feature film was shot in only two days. The film can be categorized as minimal horror cinema too, a genre that Rouzbeh Rashidi is experimenting with within the realm of experimental cinema.

Watch the trailer HERE

“Rashidi-Devereaux Cinema” is filmmaker Rouzbeh Rashidi, and actor James Devereaux. Both highly experienced in their respective fields, they began collaborating in 2010, with the -inspired feature film, Closure Of Catharsis, about a man coming to terms with a repressed trauma. The film has enjoyed a strong response, and has been shown in Ireland, United Kingdom, Croatia and Chile, with more screenings to be confirmed.

More recently, Rashidi & Devereaux started work on the Irish Arts Council backed feature film, HE, about a man who, intent on killing himself, is recording messages for his wife and family. Filming began in Dublin this year, and will be completed in February 2012. They have also completed five shorts for The Homo Sapiens Project, a highly experimental, personal film series, part cryptic film diaries, and part impressionistic portraits of places and people.

Rashidi & Devereaux intend to create work over many many years, using their unique filmmaker-actor collaborative methods to construct an extensive filmography. Several new productions are already in the pipeline, and this website aims to keep you right up to date with everything that’s happening; They will be posting news, articles, reviews, Q and As, interviews, plus trailers, blogs, screening news, and developments with the Rashidi-Devereaux film workshops.”

Visit the RASHIDI-DEVEREAUX CINEMA website HERE

Blogger NUTS4R2 has written a review on Bipedality (2010).

Read HERE

Indwell Extinction of Hawks in Remoteness (2012), an experimental feature film by Rouzbeh Rashidi is now completed. This heavily hypnotic film was shot between 1998 and 2000 in Tehran with a VHS camera. This film belongs to a trilogy called “VHS Trilogy” which two of them have been made. The first one is “Reminiscences of Yearning (2011) and the second one is “Indwell Extinction of Hawks in Remoteness (2012). The third one will be shot once an old VHS camera can be found.

Watch the trailer HERE

Homo Sapiens Project is an ongoing series of personal video works by Rouzbeh Rashidi initiated in August 2011 for both online and screen context. They are highly experimental, part cryptic film diaries and part impressionistic portraits of places and people, and often suffused with an eerie sense of mystery reminiscent of horror cinema. From highly composed and distantly framed meditations to frenetically flickering plunges into the textural substance of moving images, the restless creativity of this vision of life as a cinematic laboratory is never short of surprising. Encompassing everything from documentary monologues to found footage, Rashidi constantly strives to expand his filmmaking palette while putting his unmistakeable stamp on whatever footage passes through his hands.

Produced By Experimental Film Society ©

For complete information please visit the Homo Sapiens Project Website

Véronique Martin review on the recent Experimental Film Society film screening @ CINEKINOSIS @ Cafe Kino, in Bristol UK.

Read HERE