MFJ: Expanded Cinema and Narrative http://mfj-online.org/journalPages/MFJ39/hatfieldpage.

html

Expanded Cinema and Narrative

Some Reasons for a Review of the Avant-Garde Debates Around Narrativity

Jackie Hatfield
Printed in MFJ No. 39/40 (Winter 2003) Hidden Currents

In the second half of the twentieth century the history and theory of experimental film and
video was written with a bias towards modernist material concerns stemming from Clement
Greenberg’s modernist position and material specific ideas. Similar to other art forms, a
schematized formal history has been predominant, with rules laid down in various texts about
which artists followed whom. Although it is not materially film or video, I aim here to discuss
how interactive moving image practice and its ancestors, expanded cinema, media and
performance, have been excluded from the main theoretical arguments that have shaped the
histories of experimental film and video. Of course, I acknowledge the historical writings that
are pluralistic and celebrate hybridity, for example Gene Youngblood’s Expanded Cinema and
Douglas Davis’ Art and the Future, but they are few and far between. Here I am concentrating
on the canonical arguments laid down by historians and film theoreticians and why I think they
are problematic to future experimentation. Furthermore, I am arguing that the historical
uncertainties around the relationship between narrative and the avant-garde have created a
reductive climate for experimentation with narrativity. I am concerned with charting the
avant-garde that has been multi-screen, narrative, pro-illusion and pro-representation, since
expanded cinema and interactive cinema have often been an exploration of all of these
elements. I will outline the supposed lineages that have been used to categorize experimental
film and video, and why I believe that these ideological positions must be reviewed in the light
of current interactive practice, but also in relation to experimental cinema as a whole. The
bottom line is that I am against categorizations and lineages that have become institutional, and
which have been taken up by curators or funding bodies where they are used to corral
individual artists’ work into groupings, and inevitably serve to write artists in and out of
history. My position is an artists reaction - no, a manifesto- against conservative positions in a
quest for expanded cinema to be given its rightful status, a central position within experimental
film and video history. Artists have often struggled against the institutional or the state funded
and yes, theoretical and historical texts around practice do affect artists, who need validation
and acknowledgement of their work.

Importantly, what needs to be recognized is that in practice experimental film and video, rather

use Amazon to order by credit

card

1 sur 9 06/03/2016 16:05

MFJ: Expanded Cinema and Narrative http://mfj-online.org/journalPages/MFJ39/hatfieldpage.html

accept that there are narrative dimensions to Anger, Deren, Brakhage, Warhol and Markopoulos
who are part of the American canon, it is largely the definition of narrative that I take issue with
and the uncertainties about the real intricacies of narrativity. The general tone within
avant-garde debates has been that artists were against narrative continuity and conventional
cause and effect structures, and the focus has been on work that that can be interpreted as
anti-narrative or "liberated" 1 from the "demands of narrative continuity" 2 . This position can
be seen more clearly within the British texts, stemming from the structural materialists and
epitomized by Peter Gidal’s influential book Structural Materialist Film (1989). On the other
hand while the theories have been preoccupied with the anti-narrative stance, artists have often
been both pro- and anti-narrative. For example, omitted from the canonical histories were the
experiments with expanded cinema, narrative and performance that took place within the
movements of Futurism, Dada, Bauhaus, at the Black Mountain College, with the Fluxus group
and crucially the art and technology experiments in the 60s and 70s, epitomized by the
pioneering activity of the engineer Billy Klüver and E.A.T. at "Nine Evenings: Theatre and
Engineering" in New York in 1966.

It was through discussion with my students and with film and video artists that I realized that
the seminal single screen based histories laid down by only a few people were in fact acting to
define the whole sector for future generations. There are notable exceptions, for example
Warhol’s Chelsea Girls, which has been widely acknowledged, but there is a difference
between this kind of double screen formation and expanded work where the screens are part of
a space, i.e. where the proscenium arch is removed. There are few contexts where artists can
experiment with and be innovators of technology and cinema, I believe it needs a concerted
effort by institutions and funding bodies to be aware of the history of artists’ endeavors in this
area, but more importantly, to support them. I suggest that these two questions be addressed:

What is cinema if it is not film? And what is the history and status of interactive expanded
cinema, technological invention, and narrative experimentation within the history and theory of
the experimental avant-garde?

Although cinema‚ in itself, is synonymous with spectacle, vaudeville, theatre, circus,

performance, narrative, and audience; structuralist filmmakers and conceptual artists of the
1960s and 1970s took a position that was anti-illusion, and the critique and theory around film
and video created a modernist-oriented climate for the practice. Artists’ use of video in the
early 1960s also initiated debate to determine how film was different from video, and vice
versa. Artists and theorists alike were establishing characteristics that were specific to the
mediums, much in the same way that Greenberg had defined the "flatness" of a painting as
being "the only condition painting shared with no other art." 3 There were a number of key texts
by artists that categorized experimental film around its material specificity; these have
included, for example, Peter Gidal’s Structural Materialist Film (1989), The Structural Film
Anthology (1976), Hans Richter’s The Struggle for Film(1986), and Malcolm LeGrice’s
Abstract Film and Beyond(1977). Similarly, in the 1970s there were concerns with video’s

use Amazon to order by credit

card

2 sur 9 06/03/2016 16:05

MFJ: Expanded Cinema and Narrative http://mfj-online.org/journalPages/MFJ39/hatfieldpage.html

that artists were "constructing alternative frameworks and procedures out of the prevailing
climate," 5 and that in retrospect the early work was more conceptual than formal. Nevertheless
in the UK there were two distinct material specific histories forming around film and video
practice of the 1970s that were institutionalized around the London Filmmakers Coop and
London Video Arts. Although in the last few years there has been a convergence of these
technologies, the material status of film in relation to video and other forms continues to be
debated by those who are in love with film as film. The historical lines of demarcation between
film and video are problematic, as any preoccupation with filmic-ness located in the material is
missing the point. For example, I would prefer to use the term cinematic to describe what I do
as an artist. I do not use film, but I do make cinema -- it moves, it is composed of moving
images. Bill Viola makes cinematic work, although working electronically; Chris Hales,
Malcolm LeGrice and Grahame Weinbren make cinematic work although working
electronically and digitally. The formal distinctions with their intrinsic qualities became
edifices in the UK for practice and distribution but they were a myth.

As well as the material distinctions insisted on through the 60s, 70s and 80s, there were some
influential texts that sought to define experimental film and video further, and it is these
conceptual bases that have since become dogma that need to be re-addressed alongside the
resulting political outcome. To consider this relative to its historical context, it is important to
say that in London David Curtis, Malcolm Le Grice and Peter Wollen were seeking to give film
status within fine art practice at the time, and clearly it was their endeavors that were extremely
influential on the setting up of the agencies to fund experimental filmmaking. The position
developed by these men and their colleagues have had enormous influence on the funding
practices of the public agencies of the British Film Institute and the Arts Council of Great
Britain (now the Arts Council of England), neither of which function anymore as providers of
funding specifically for artists moving image. In "The Two-Avant Gardesâ" published in Studio
International 1975, Peter Wollen argued for specific distinctions in avant-garde practices. He
established a lineage from abstract painting for what he called the first avant-garde, which he
defined by the absence of verbal language and narrative. The second avant-garde remained
within the bounds of narrative cinema. He claimed that divisions could be made along the lines
of "aesthetic assumptions, institutional framework, type of financial support, type of critical
backing, historical and cultural origin," 6 and the institutional and, furthermore, regional
frameworks that Wollen referred to were the New York and London Filmmakers Co-ops.
Wollen argued that to be included within the first avant-garde the work had to be non-narrative
and anti-illusionist, and there were no anomalies to his clear line of demarcation extending
through history. Furthermore the work he argued must also have been made, distributed,
critiqued or funded within or around the London or New York Filmmakers Coops, and stated
that "New York is clearly thecapital of the Co-op movement." 7 So to give an example of how
this might have worked, an artist in Scotland or Ireland would have had to distribute their
non-narrative work from the London or New York Filmmakers Coop to be considered part of
Wollen’s first avant-garde, and be funded by one of the public agencies. Consequently the
formal arguments and ideological politics affected practice, either through access to the

use Amazon to order by credit

card

3 sur 9 06/03/2016 16:05

MFJ: Expanded Cinema and Narrative http://mfj-online.org/journalPages/MFJ39/hatfieldpage.html

Structural/Materialist Film."’ Here Gidal stated that "an avant-garde film defined by its
development towards increased materialism and materialist function does not represent, or
document, anything." 8 At the time he was almost puritanical in his arguments for a continual
attempt to destroy illusionism in his drive to validate film as film. Again, GidalÕs position was
representative of ideas that characterized avant-garde film debates in the late 1960s and 1970s.
As well as artists’ various approaches to narrative, the history of multiple projection
environments, including performance, challenged theorist’s assumptions about the
anti-illusionism and anti-narrativity of the avant-garde. After all, what is narrative? There are
contradictions as it can be argued that narrative exists as soon as there is a representational
image or as soon as there is a subject present. So for example when we see a performance as
part of a screening, or when we experience expanded cinema, the bodies of the performer or
audience are physically present as living embodiments of their narrative histories, we come
from a narrative place. My point is that the definition of opposition to narrative has never been
resolved; the lines of demarcation never quite clear.

As I have suggested, the categorizations of Wollen and the general tone epitomized by Gidal
around narrativity were not reflected so literally in the actual work of artists either in the UK or
US. Artists who gravitated towards film from performance, theatre and dance aimed to expand
the theatre stage from the proscenium arch out towards the audience to create happenings or
situations that included them as part of the event. For example, in 1958 the ONCE group from
Ann Arbor Michigan used environmental projection with performance to "free film from its flat
frontal orientation." 9 In 1965, Robert Whitman made Prune Flat, a synchronized projection
and performance, and Aldo Tambellini used multiple projections to create electromedia
environments. In 1967 Carolee Schneeman staged active performance-oriented cinematic
spectacles such as Night Crawlers and Snows, and in 1969 John Cage and Ronald Nameth
presented HPSCHD, a multi-media extravaganza that included one hundred films. In the late
1960s the group set up by Robert Rauschenberg and the engineer Billy KlŸver, Experiments in
Art and Technology (EAT), staged interactive installations extending the potentiality of art
towards an inclusive experience for the viewer, incorporating technological experimentation as
part of the event. As one of the works in Nine Evenings of ‘66, Oyvind Fahlstrom’s Kisses
Sweeter Than Wine was an extraordinary artwork incorporating technological, synaesthetic,
narrative, and performative experimentation. 10

In the UK expanded work was becoming publicly quite visible and some of the uncertainties
around narrativity were being aired. In the 1970s, artists like Anabel Nicolson described her
work in progress "the wooden camera and projector will also be used as elements in a situation
where viewers and performers/film stars will be the sameâ" 11 and Malcolm LeGrice, were
incorporating performance with film and also questioning the boundaries between audience and
artwork. In Reel Time (1973) Nicolson famously performed with a sewing machine and
projector and projected film of a sewing machine in operation, which was simultaneously sewn
into a real sewing machine. 12 At the important show "Perspectives on British Avant-Garde
Film" in 1977 at the Hayward Gallery there was a great variety of filmmaking reflected in the

use Amazon to order by credit

card

4 sur 9 06/03/2016 16:05

MFJ: Expanded Cinema and Narrative http://mfj-online.org/journalPages/MFJ39/hatfieldpage.html

performance-oriented (i.e., audience or artist), and narrative work (in the widest sense). There
was performance based work by Stuart Brisley (Arbeit Macht Frei 77), and Jeff Keen’s (White
Dust), which was collage, imagistic, narrative, and performative, and which Tony Rayns
described in the catalogue as "an homage to vintage movie serials, a form with very specific,
very idiosyncratic narrative conventions [that] can only be described as collage narrative." 13 In
relation to the theoretical debates of the time Keen’s multi-layered, multi-screened, projections
on projections could be described as pro narrative and representational, and not at all
anti-narrative. Sensorial and expanded, Ray Day Film, absorbed the viewer into Keen’s
interpretation of kitsch horror and Americanized comic book narratives. Also there was
Marilyn Halford’s work, frequently performative, including New Sketchesand Ten Green
Bottleswhich was by Deke Dusinberre’s account from the show catalogue an interactive film
where the audience "assume that participatory role by playing a child’s game," 14 and described
her films as "simple, subversive and wryly humorous; in addition they explore those aesthetic
issues which inform all of British avant-garde film-making." 15 Work by Halford included
Hands Knees and Boomsa-Daisy (1973) which Halford described as "gaming with a screen
image of myself," 16 Footsteps (1974) described as a "game in the making," 17 between the
camera and actor, about which Halford said "I am interested in the relationship of theatrical
devices in film working at tangents with its abstract visual qualities" 18 and for Rehearsals
(1976) "my interests are in the theatrical devices and repeated movement between actors
through rehearsalsâ and to present them theatrically." 19 In video terms, expanded work of the
late 70s, tended to be modernist in tone, with a focus on time, space and television, but shows
like "The Video Showâ" at the Serpentine Gallery in 1975 showcased all kinds of video,
including expanded, interactive, representational and cinematic, e.g. Valie Export’s Space
Hearing and Space Seeingâ Tamara Krikorian’s Breeze, and Hermine Freed’s Art Herstory.

What I’m trying to demonstrate by listing just some of these works is that despite the modernist
thrust of the writing with an emphasis on the lineage of purist and non-imagistic anti-narrative
practice, what actually went on was totally different. Rather than this history being weighted
towards anti-narrative, the reality has been that, beginning with the Futurists and the
Surrealists, through to Fluxus, and to date, artists have played around with narrative rather than
being predominantly against it. In actual fact the history of artists’ experimentation with
narrativity, representation, interactivity and technology as part of the experimental avant-garde,
is un-accounted for and unwritten. Therefore, looking at the work retrospectively the
extraordinary and imagistic, textural and sensuous works of LeGrice and Nicolson, seem to
bear no relationship to the dry formalist climate around them. Nicolson’s Slides (1970) was
lyrical and physical, layered and colorful, teasing the viewer into looking for representation
within the filmic-ness. She shows us the process, we see the slippage of the film through the
gate, the sprocket holes and the material flicker. We get glimpses of a figure. We are waiting for
these fragments to re-appear and are conscious of film’s capacity to record a representation
relative to the artist’s action in manipulating the film as a painterly event. Threshold(1972) by
LeGrice is a three-screen work including performance, where the artist changes the

use Amazon to order by credit

card

5 sur 9 06/03/2016 16:05

MFJ: Expanded Cinema and Narrative http://mfj-online.org/journalPages/MFJ39/hatfieldpage.html

representational and narrative world, and performed live, this work is a physical meeting of
artwork, artist and audience. And also with Footsteps (1974), Marilyn Halford toys with the
viewer’s expectation of cinema and their place in relation to the screen and the camera. The
opening shots are in negative, the figure, a woman, turns to look at the camera, and we seem to
be creeping up on her. We ask, who is behind the camera? The figure turns away, then we get
nearer, and we realize that we are implicated in a game of statues with the woman. There isn’t
any montage, just a cut and a second section, which is the same as the first, but positive this
time, with music added. We are reminded of the silent films, ‘primitive’ cinema, games and
early American movies. The film is processed to look ‘old’, dragged through dust and grained
to appear ancient and crackly. So while these works are structural and formal they are also
narrative, they reference cinema, film, and representation, and ask us to question them relative
to that.

Although an important and much welcome history of single screen film and video, the tone of
the anti-narrative stance has been reiterated more recently in A History of Experimental Film
and Video (1999) by Al Rees. I don’t want to be too critical of Rees, since he is the only person
lately who has attempted to write an historical overview of the sector, and he is dealing with a
minefield trying not to leave anyone out. However, I have one point of contention with his
historical lines of demarcation around narrativity, since his views are widespread and
influential. Although it is a small point within an otherwise evenhanded historical review of the
theories, Rees referred to the "artists’ avant-garde," 20 and discusses the issue of experimental
narrative, and its distinctiveness as an "art form," 21 from the "avant-garde." 22 He included
within the "art cinema"â as opposed to the "artists’ avant-garde," 23 Eisenstein, Pudovkin,
Delluc, Dulac, and Gance. Rees described Richard Abel’s distinctions between the artistsâ
avant-garde and the art cinema or narrative avant-garde, and made his own distinctions, "the
rise of narrative, psychological realism in the maturing Art Cinema led to its gradual split from
the anti-narrative artists’ avant-garde." 24 In Rees’s definition the artists’ avant-garde has again
been aligned with anti-narrativization and non-drama. His arguments have been based on the
supposed lines of demarcation between dramatic narrative and experimental film. He argued
that "the continuous flow of images that editing permits, and which is the basis of dramatic
illusionism in film, is in contrast to the equal power of film editing to enforce breaks and
interruptions in that flow," 25 and that "the role of experimental film was to push the distinction
to its limits." 26 My reading of Rees’s distinction was that while drama based film had narrative
expectation built into it, the artists’ avant-garde used illusionism and narrative against
themselves‚ i.e. drama was narrative, experimental film was anti-narrative. The problem is, it
was along similar lines of definition that the majority of women’s practice of the 1970s and 80s
was marginalized as being narrative and therefore not art (i.e. not coming from the abstract or
formal film) and not part of the purism debate. This reductive positioning of narrative was
challenged by feminist groups in the 70s and 80s who consequently set about distributing work
through their own organizations, for example, Circles and Cinenova (UK), Women Make
Movies (US), Video Femmes (Canada). Much of women’s practice of the 70s & 80s was

use Amazon to order by credit

card

6 sur 9 06/03/2016 16:05

MFJ: Expanded Cinema and Narrative http://mfj-online.org/journalPages/MFJ39/hatfieldpage.html

In relation to the formal and material arguments and the narrative distinctions, I believe that in
the UK little seems to have changed in forty years and there is currently a sense of déjà vu.
Consider the position of women involved with the avant-garde in the 60s, 70s and 80s. In 1979
Anabel Nicolson, Lis Rhodes, Felicity Sparrow and others were so angry at the dominance of
the masculinised modernist canon patronised by the Arts Council, that they with held their
work en mass from the "Film as Film: Formal Experiment in Film" exhibition at the Hayward
Gallery accusing the committee of "denying the space within it to answer back, to add or
disagree." 27 They argued that they were not "being left free to characterize our own
contributions" 28 and that their "perspectives were tolerated rather than considered seriously." 29
They objected with their feet, on the grounds that diverse practices were being squeezed into
the anti-narrative formal abstract debates, and furthermore that they were being used to define
retrospectively the narrative work of women such as Maya Deren and Germaine Dulac. There
was emphasis on the abstract formal qualities above all else, which were used to contextualize
this seminal narrative practice within the male dominated canon, and to re-define and
re-imagine it as either formal or anti-narrative or ‘art cinema’ and narrative. The predominance
of this position and the totally institutional patronage of non-narrative effectively silenced the
variety of practices that women happened to be involved with and which in reality collectively
formed the history of the avant-garde. Inherent in the formalist rhetoric was the rejection of the
alternative languages of cinema that didn’t fit the prescribed norm, and loosely speaking
individual artists were ‘in’ the avant-garde, if their work could be matched to the theoretical
categorization. This isn’t exactly surprising given that film discourse was a late starter in the
modernist tendency to substantiate traditions and specific artistic trends, but it meant that artists
had to be totally oppositional to narrative in the widest sense. The point was that women’s work
was included, and was written about, but within the frame of reference of the abstract/formal
debates, which left almost no place for the naming of, for example, an experimental narrative
language, nor what Laura Mulvey has described as a "feminist formalism." 30 In his
contribution to the "Film as Film" exhibition catalogue in his essay entitled The History We
Need, Malcolm LeGrice acknowledged that the discourse around narrativity was riddled with
ambiguity and unease, and perhaps he felt the potential consequences of restriction more
keenly, since he has always fostered an inclusive approach to experimentation. Though as I
have said, women challenged this by setting up their own distribution and means of production,
in particular Felicity Sparrow and others set up "Circles" which became "Cinenova", and was a
central space for the support of experimental narrative work by women, and against dominant
forms of representation. To fast forward to date, Cinenova has now closed down, funding
withdrawn, and the important historical archive of LUX (London Electronic Arts, and London
Film-makers Coop) has also re-located after a critical few months of crisis management by the
artists. The sector at present has limited means of distribution, the current LUX organization
distributes the back catalogue and a few selected artists works. No freedom here, no equal
opportunity, no open access, and certainly no context for exhibition. It is probable that works
by many women artists of the 80s and 90s from these archive collections will never be seen
again if no-one objects, since they don’t fit into the current zeitgeist, which is, materiality (film
not video or electronic) and anti-narrative. The old arguments are being played out again. In

use Amazon to order by credit

card

7 sur 9 06/03/2016 16:05

MFJ: Expanded Cinema and Narrative http://mfj-online.org/journalPages/MFJ39/hatfieldpage.html

standpoints. The small chinks where artists have squeezed their productions have been getting
narrower. The point is there is a danger that more selective histories will be written, as to date
within the various histories of the experimental avant-garde there has been a gradual
writing-out of an enormous body of narrative, expanded, technological and interactive moving
image work that does not fit easily into categories. Perhaps it is the fault of the artists, who
should have written their own histories, and for future consideration we should start to
challenge the way that the writing up of practice takes place. One thing is certain, anti-narrative
as definition for what is avant-garde practice or not, is and has been historically, a flawed form
of classification.

My review of the avant-gardist positions and ideologies would draw a different picture of the
avant-garde to include the histories of expanded cinema and experiments with narrative as a
central rather than marginal element of artists’ experimentation. Although drawing a similar
lineage to the historical avant-garde debates it would have a different emphasis. For one thing,
there would be no material delineation between film and video post digital (I will be extremely
unpopular for this position) and there would be wider debate around what has constituted
narrative and anti-narrative experimentation. There is no doubt about the historical relationship
between anti narrative and narrative in artists’ practice - each drives the other. Though as I have
said, within the critique and definition the emphasis on this relationship has been perceived as
artists’ work versus mainstream, and the issue of narrative in experimental film and video needs
more research to determine a historical trajectory within which to include much overlooked
narrative work.

To conclude, within the relatively short academic history of experimental film and video there
has been emphasis on the material conditions of the mediums revolving around narrative
categorisation. This schematization of film and video artworks has been oriented around what
were initially Greenbergian formal concerns and there has been pre-occupation through the
writing that the avant-garde has been totally opposed to mainstream narrative conventions. I
have tried to point out here that the historical and theoretical premise of avant-garde artists
being anti-narrative can be proved unfounded by simply reviewing the practice throughout
history. This is not widely available, so similar to a review of the women’s avant-garde in
relation to narrative, there is a need to determine a history for experimental interactive
expanded cinema that is not guided by anti-illusion, material concerns, or single screen as
categories to define it. After all categorization and definition are forms of censorship that have
often found their way into institutional funding and exhibition curatorship. There is no doubt
that ideologies take their toll on the continuation of certain artists practice. We need to
understand how this has happened in the past to optimistically look forward to a climate for
radical experimentation with moving-image in the future. At the moment in the UK, artist’s
communities are dispersed and fragmented, and there is no place where artists can show their
work without a limiting selection process oriented around non-narrative single screen film. In
1972 and before prematurely bringing her expanded filmmaking to a standstill Gill Eatherley
said "There have been many struggles with projection ideas, which are impossible to realize,

use Amazon to order by credit

card

8 sur 9 06/03/2016 16:05

MFJ: Expanded Cinema and Narrative http://mfj-online.org/journalPages/MFJ39/hatfieldpage.html

distribution and exhibition facilitate expanded moving-image and experiments with narrativity,
and don’t marginalize them any more than they have been to date.

1. P Adams Sitney Visionary Film The American Avant-Garde 1943-1978 p.4. Sitney is
referring to Un Chien Andalou.
2. Ibid , p. 4
3. Clement Greenberg "Modernist Painting," from Art in Theory 1900-1990 Charles Harrison
and Paul Wood p.755
4. From an essay written in for the exhibition Video Art ICA Philadelphia Catalogue. Also
quoted by David Antin in Video Art an Anthology, Ed Ira Schneider Beryl Korot, p.174
5. David Hall, "Before the Concrete Sets" in AND Journal of Art No.26 1991 p4
6. Peter Wollen, "The Two Avant-Gardes," Studio International November 1975 p.171
7. Ibid p.171
8. The British Avant-Garde Film 1926-1995: An Anthology of Writings Edited by Michael
O'Pray (University of Luton Press, Arts Council of England, 1996), p.145
9. Milton Cohen of the ONCE group from Gene Youngblood Expanded Cinema (Studio Vista,
1970), p. 371
10. Kisses Sweeter than Wine, and Open Score by Robert Whitman have been documented by
Billy Klüver and were recently presented by him at Evolution 2002, part of the Leeds
International Film Festival.
11. Nicholson's description of her work in Perspectives on British Avant-Garde Film Hayward
Gallery Catalogue, 1977.
12. See Michael O'Pray The British Avant-Garde Film 1926-1995, p213
13-19. From the catalogue for Perspectives on British Avant-Garde Film, Hayward Gallery 2nd
March-24th April 1977.
20. AL Rees A History of Experimental Film and Video, British Film Institute, 1999, p 30.
21. Ibid p.33
22. Ibid. p.30
23. Ibid pp. 30-33
24. Ibid p.33
25. Ibid p.34
26. Ibid p.34
27-29. Women and the Formal Film, Annabel Nicolson, Felicity Sparrow, Jane Clarke, Jeanette
Iljon, Lis Rhodes, Mary Pat Leece, Pat Murphy, Susan Stein, statement from Film as Film,
Formal Experiment in Film 1910-75 , ed. Phil Drummond, Arts Council of Great Britain, 1979,
p.118
30. "Film, Feminism and the Avant-garde," Laura Mulvey, written as a lecture for 'Women and
Literature,' Oxford Studies Committee 1978, published in The British Avant-Garde Film 1926
to 1995, p199

use Amazon to order by credit

card

9 sur 9 06/03/2016 16:05