4100231 European Avant- Garde Film: Essay Why did European avant-garde artists turn to film in the 1920s?

We say this is the century of steam, the century of electricity, much as we say the stone age, the iron age, the bronze age, but we will soon be saying it is the age of the cinema.
Edmond enoit- !evy" 190#

The invention of film camera is a defining moment in the history of visual culture. 1 rom the !umieres first screenings in 1"#$,2 cinema %uic&ly develo'ed from a (courtly novelty)3 to a ma*or, new, cultural institution of s'ectacle entertainment for the masses. Within the first ten years, s'ecialised *ournals and news'a'er columns devoted to cinema had a''eared, film theory and critical discourse started to emerge, and discursive 'ractises began to ta&e sha'e.4 +erha's with the e,ce'tion of film dart,5 cinema was not reserved for the high classes- it was aimed at a mass audience for all social bac&grounds, and became a 'o'ular social 'ast.time. / +ur'ose.built theatres, re'laced small, dar& rooms with benches,0 and the noisy, (untrained)" audiences of the first cinematic screenings were (socialised) into hushed, immobile, 'assive s'ectators.# 1s a conse%uence of the standardisation of film form and cinema e,hibition,10 audiences %uic&ly became rece'tive to narrative, 'lot and character stereoty'es, of 'o'ular genres, including2 comic s&etches, fantasies, melodramas and classics- which were largely 'roduced by 3ollywood studios. 11

4hwartz, 5aness 6. and 7eanneene 8. +rzyblys&i- The Nineteenth- Century Visual Culture Reader, 6outledge, 2004, ' 1. 12 2 6ees, 1. !- 1 3istory of 9,'erimental ilm and 5ideo2 rom the :anonical 1vant. ;arde to :ontem'orary <ritish +ractise, < = <oo&, +algrave 8acmillan, 2010, ' 1# 3 :ousins, 8ar&- The Story of Film, +avilion, 200/, ' 2" 4 1bel, 6ichard- rench ilm Theory and :riticism2 1 3istory>1nthology 1#00. 1#3#, +rinceton ?niversity +ress, 1##3, ,vi $ Williams, 1lan !arson- Republic of Ima es! " #istory of French Filmma$in , 3arvard ?niversity +ress, 1##2, ' /3 / 6ees, 2010, # 0 :ousins, ' 30 " @elmes, 7ohn- "n Introduction to Film Studies, 6outledge, 2003, ' 101 # 6ees, ' 11 10 @elmes, ' 102 11 @elmes, ' 101

4100231 6ecognising the scale of its influence and mass a''eal, cinema was used for a variety of social and cultural 'ur'oses.12 1s a mechanical derivative of 'hotogra'hy, its) technical ability to record, saw that film also had the 'otential to document and inform, and was soon used for (moral or social 'ersuasion-) 13 to advertise- s'read news- and to educate. 1s this illustrates, the Western cinema had %uic&ly evolved from 'redominantly thrilling novelties, to absorbing 'sychological e,'eriences, 14 which had not only become entrenched within 'o'ular culture, but had disseminated into other influential fields. 1s !evy had 'redicted, it a''eared that the age of the cinema had truly arrived. =n order to address the %uestion, (Why did 9uro'ean avant.garde artists turn to film in the 1#20sA) this essay e,'lores the influence of mainstream cinema on the 'ractises of the avant.garde. 1lthough the following discussion includes a brief overview of a range of artists creating film during this 'eriod, the main focus lies with the 4urrealists- 'articularly 4alvador Bali and !uis <unuel, and includes an analysis of their surrealist film %n chien "ndalou C1#2#D. <y e,'loring the use of the mise-enscene, cinematogra'hy and formal structure, = 'ro'ose that the 4urrealists turned to film, in order to ta&e advantage of the conventions and standardisations that were associated with the mainstream, narrative film. 1lthough cinema was hailed as a (si,th art) 1$ as early as 1#11>12, it was not until the 1#20s that it was fully embraced as an artistic medium- 1/ and even then, many artists turned to film only as a (su''lement) of their e,isting 'ractise. 10 1s a 'roduct of modernity and a form of bourgeois entertainment, generic values associated with cinema, such as, (3ollywood,) 'o'ular a''eal and visual 'leasure, o''osed ma*or tendencies of modernist art.1" Therefore, artists began to e,'eriment with radical, new techni%ues, as a way of negating filmic conventions that had become so integral and admired in mainstream cinema.
12 13

3owever as a technologically modern medium,

:arroll, @oel- Interpretin the &o'in Ima e, :ambridge ?niversity +ress, 1##", ' #/ 1bel, 6ichard- French Film Theory and Criticism! " #istory("ntholo y )*+,- )*-*, +rinceton ?niversity +ress, 1##3, ' 10 14 :ousins, ' 3/ 1$ 6ees, 2010, 2$ 1/ Turvey, 8alcolm- The Filmin of &odern .ife! /uropean "'ant- 0arde Film of the )*1+s, Ectober <oo&s, 8=T +ress, :ambridge, 8assachusetts- !ondon, 9ngland, 2011, ' 1 10 6ees, ' " 1" 6ees, ' #

4100231 cinema also 'rovided a uni%ue 'latform in which to criti%ue and reflect u'on their modern world and thus, modernity. =ns'ired by emerging theories regarding the role of 'erce'tion and time in art, many artists, turned to the film medium, in an attem't to ('ut 'aintings in motion.) 1# Therefore, many artists disengaged formal narrative, dis'laced recognisable character. ty'es, and disru'ted s'atial and tem'oral conventions of commercial cinema. 1rtists such as 3ans 6ichter and 5i&ing 9ggeling ignored the mise-en-scene com'letely, favouring abstract animations of 'ure, gra'hic forms and non.re'resentational colours and sha'es.20 8any favoured pur %ualities of the film material, drawing attention to the fundamentals of cinema as (a stri' of trans'arent material that FrunsG through a 'ro*ector.)21 Ethers, including ernand !eger, 'referred to foreground sha'e and te,ture, rather than diegetic reality- and avant.gardist)s, such as 6ene :lair and rancis +icabia, e,'lored innovative editing and cinematogra'hic techni%ues to interru't narrative continuity, and negate other familiar elements of cinema, such as framing and conventional camera angles, found in commercial film.22 1lthough variant in style, form and aesthetic, it seemed that on the surface, these films shared a common interest in innovation and the e,'erimental, and dismissed the standardisations found in mainstream film. This a''arent unification can be 'rovisionally e,'lained, by what 8atei :alinescu)s has called, (a radical criticism of the 'ast and a definite commitment to change and the values of the future.) 23 3owever, as 8alcolm Turvey suggests, in The Filmin of &odern .ife! /uropean "'ant-0arde Film of the )*1+s2 the relationshi' between the cinematic avant.garde and commercial cinema, was as com'le, as that of the wider historic avant.garde and bourgeois modernity.24 1lthough many of the films created during the 1#20s, seemed to re*ect concerns that were 'aramount in the creation of illusory reality of the 'ro*ected image, 2$ they still
1# 20

6ees, ' 1 Turvey ' 10.4$ 21 6ees, ' 2" 22 Turvey, ' 0/. 104 23 :alinescu, 8atei- Fi'e Faces of &odernity! &odernity, "'ant-0arde, 3ecadence, 4itsch, 5ostmodernism, Bu&e ?niversity +ress, 1#"0, ' #$ 24 Turvey, ' 1. 1/ 2$ 6ees, ' 1$.10

4100231 shared some features of conventional cinema. or e,am'le, films were still shown in What

theatres- they relied u'on an audience to watch the 'ro*ected image, and many were 'resented with musical accom'animent, not unli&e mainstream films.2/ emerges then, is a (dialectic, rather than a sim'le negationH.the avant.garde may o''ose what it ta&es to be bourgeois taste,)20 yet it unavoidably embraces elements of it. Whilst their contem'oraries were e,'loring rather more e,'erimental avenues, the 4urrealists were a''lying many of the conventions of narrative cinema to their own films, in order to then subvert and transgress e,'ectations and associations that had been standardised in the cinematic event. Their films were not e,'lorations of abstract sha'es and form on the film stri', they were not ra'id montages of dis'arate images of machines and inverted swinging ladies- 4urrealist film had narrative structure, familiar character.ty'es, a sense of diegetic time and s'ace, and shared many of the cinematogra'hic techni%ues that could be found in the 'o'ular films of the day. 4o what made the 4urrealist films canonical of the avant.garde rather than of the mainstream cinemaA What drew the 4urrealists to the cinema in the first 'laceA What as'ects of the cinematic e,'erience suited their cause and why did they 'refer convention to innovationA =n the first 4urrealist manifesto, 1ndre <reton characterised the 4urrealists, as being (modest recordin instruments, who 'resented (free functioning thought) absent from any control e,ercised by reason. 16 1rt was created via ('sychic automatism,) 2# that esca'ed artistic sub*ectivity or 'reconce'tions, in order to create something that could be understood universally. 1s a mechanical technology, film lac&ed the intervention of the human hand, which im'osed sub*ectivity that they so abhorred, and therefore,

2/ 20

With the e,ce'tion of (austere) Biagonal Symphony for which 9ggling forbade sound. 6ees, ' 4$ 3ill, 7ohn and +amela :hurch ;ibson CedD- The "'ant-0ardes and /uropean Cinema before )*-+, E,ford ?niversity +ress, 1###, ' 3#$. 410 2" 3arrison, :harles, and +aul Wood- "rt and Theory, )*++- 1+++! "n "ntholo y of Chan in Ideas, Wiley. <lac&well, 200#, ' 440. 4$3 2# Turvey, ' 112

4100231 re'resented a new ob*ective medium which seemed 'erfectly suited to the 4urrealist ethos. 30 1s a 'o'ular form of entertainment for the masses, cinema can be seen as being devoid of hierarchy, which 'articularly suited 4alvador Bali)s 'hiloso'hy of anti.art. 31 @ot to be confused with the Badaist anti.art, this 4urrealist conce'tion, relates to an art that can be understood with no (aesthetic training,) 32 which can be observed with ('ure eyes.)33 3e believed that this would rid (artistic and sub*ective distortions,)34 to enable the s'ectator the freedom to see reality, in (all its 'oetic strangeness.) 3$ Therefore cinema was thought to be the medium which would suit the 4urrealist ambition to reach out to a larger number of 'eo'le on a more (universal 'lane.)3/ =t has been argued that the real interest for the 4urrealists was for the 'henomenon of the cinematic e,'erience rather than the film itself. 6ichardson has stated that the 4urrealists believed (it is the environment within which films are shown that 'rovides a 'lace in which the marvellous may be encountered.) 30 =ndeed, <reton does e,claim. (Three cheers for dar&ened roomsI)3" +erha's 6ichardson)s idea can be e,'lained by the 4urrealists conce'tion of cinema as conscious hallucination. or e,am'le2 in 1#2$, 7ean ;oudal e,'ressed (the 4urrealists) enthusiasm and ho'e for film to become the ideal means for the realization of surreality, of the marvellous.) 3# 3e stated2 (The cinema Hconstitutes a conscious hallucination, and ultilizes this fusion of dream and consciousness which 4urrealism would li&e to see realized...)40

30 31

1lthough this is not strictly true, one can only agree when in com'arison to 'ainting, for e,am'le. Turvey, ' 10# 32 Turvey, ' 10# 33 Bali, (8y +aintings in the 1utumn 4alon,) in 7ui, 1#20, ' 1$ 34 Turvey, ' 110 3$ Turvey, ' 10# 3/ !a ountain, 8arc 7.- Bali and +ostmodernism2 This is @ot an 9ssence, 4?@J +ress, 1##0, ' 103 30 6ichardson, 8ichael- Surrealism and Cinema, <erg, 200/, ' " 3" 3arrison, ' 440. 4$3 3# Kuenzli, 6udolf 9.- 3ada and Surrealist Film, 8=T +ress, :ambridge, 8assachusetts- !ondon, 9ngland, 1##/, ' 0 40 Kuenzli, ' 0

4100231 This, (conscious hallucination,) can be associated with the dar&ness of the cinema theatre, which was said to (lull the mind)41 thus creating a lowered level of consciousness.
42

This induced 'assivity was said to enable an (absence of

contradiction, the rela,ation of emotional tensionsHa lac& of the sense of time, and the re'lacement of e,ternal reality by a 'sychic reality obeying the 'leasure 'rinci'le.)43 =t has been suggested that cinema has the ('ower to disclose what lies dormant within the collective consciousness, ma&ing manifest what is latent without destroying the mystery of its latency.)44 imagination.4$ ilm as a medium, seems to befit the essential characteristics of the dream2 the visual, the illogical, the 'ervasive, yet the 4urrealist film relied u'on a (recognisable) reality within which it (e,'lodes conventions and artificial boundaries with the imaginary.) 4/ 4urrealist film is thus based on a combination of diametrically o''osed values. 1s 8ichel :arrouges has indicated, (4urrealism is not to be confused with the unreal- it is a lively synthesis of the real and the unreal, of the immediate and the virtual, of the banal and the fantastic.) 40 1s this suggests, the 4urrealist film balances on of the 'eri'hery of the logical and illogical by their careful combination of ('erce'tual and imaginary elements.)4" The film medium 'lays an im'ortant role in this realisation. <y its very nature, the 'ro*ected image is based on the 'remise of illusion. =n its basic form, film is a succession of still images which, via the movement of the film stri' through the 'ro*ector, creates the illusion of movement and therefore, reality. Bue to the sheer fame, and continued 'o'ularity of the movement, 4urrealism, has gained a
41

The standardisation of the cinematic event

thus created the 'erfect environment in which to begin bridging reality and

Kracauer, 4iefried- Theory of Film! the Redemption of 5hysical Reality, +rinceton ?niversity +ress, 1##0, ' 1$# 42 3ugo 8unterberg)s Film- " 5sycholo ical Study, C1#1/D argues that the s'ectator)s outer world diminishes as film hollows out an inner imaginative world free of linear time, s'ace and causality. This is largely owing to the immobile, seated and tem'orary controlled s'ectator. 43 <reton, 1#/$, 00 44 6ichardson, ' 2 4$ 3ar'er, ;raema and 6ob 4tone- The %nsil'ered Screen! Surrealism on Film, Wallflower +ress, 2000, ' 1" 4/ 3ar'er, ;raema and 6ob 4tone- The %nsil'ered Screen! Surrealism on Film, Wallflower +ress, 2000, ' 10 40 :arrouges, ' 24 4" 4cheunemann, Bietrich- "'ant-0arde Film, 6odo'i, 2000, ' 23/

4100231 range of Coften misguidedD connotations- 4# but des'ite the movement)s associations with the unreal, the bizarre, the marvellous and the unconscious, their films are in fact, rooted in the illusory reality inherent within the medium. 1s 6everdy, 4ou'ault, 1ragon, and 1'ollinaire, observed in their (tentative e,'lorationFsG of the film medium-)$0 in s'ite of the fact film ultimately 'resents fragments of reality, it could achieve (un'recedented realism) and (naturalness,) which would become central to the develo'ment of 4urrealist film.$1 What this suggests is that film, by its very nature, could create the illusion of reality, which was believed and acce'ted by 'acified audiences without %uestion. This enabled the 4urrealists to ta&e advantage of the audience)s belief in the image they were 'resented with, in order to subvert, and disru't their e,'ectations of the 'ro*ected reality, to e,'lore the absurd and the irrational. $2 %n chien "ndalou C1#2#D by !uis <unuel and Bali, e,'lore these themes of the absurd and the irrational, but 'resent a recognisable reality, with familiar elements of the mise-en-scene and cinematogra'hic techni%ues. 3owever, throughout the film, o'erations are 'ut in 'lace which set to dislocate, dis*oint and disru't the conventions which are a''lied throughout. 1s 7. 3. 8atthews indicates, %n chien "ndalou shares many allusions to the (conventions of the silent movie drama.)$3 These are seen to include (its 'antomime of 'assion and stylized gesture,)$4 which can be seen as a 'arody- an element that the 4urrealists often e,'lored, of the acting styles witnessed in these 'o'ular films. The film ma&es use of standard continuity techni%ues in order to 'resent the audience with a structure that they can follow without formal confusion, so that they can, to some e,tent, understand (the characters, their goals and the time and s'ace in which their actions occur.)$$
4#

To this day the influence of the 4urrealist movement is still recognised in fashion, contem'orary art and culture, it still has a cult value in certain subcultures, and elements have infiltrated the mainstream. 6ees, ' 44 $0 Kuenzli, '10 $1 Kuenzli, ' 10 $2 3ar'er, ;raema and 6ob 4tone- The %nsil'ered Screen! Surrealism on Film, Wallflower +ress, 2000, ' 1" $3 8atthews, 7. 3.- Surrealism and Film, 1nn 1rbor, ?niversity of 8ichigan +ress, 1#01, ' "/ $4 8atthews, ' "/ $$ Turvey, ' 11#

4100231 Bali, and <unuel made use of these ready.made connections that had been created by the standardisation of narrative film, in which to ma&e clear the surreality of the content. 3owever, the 4urrealists did not se'arate surreality from reality. <y using conventions of the commercial film, the (surreality) was thus contained within the (enigmatic and irrational 'henomena,) as seen in C igure /D. 1 series of dissolves transforms ants crawling out of a hole in a man)s hand, already an ob*ective, irrational 'henomena, to a shot of hair s'routing from a disembodied arm'it, to a sea urchin. $/ The images share similarities in formal construct, yet have no other connecting value thus disallowing narrative or connotational associations. 1s !inda Williams has suggested, it is the surrealist use of first invo&ing (rational, aesthetic, and moral norms)$0 that ma&es their transgression so a''arent. This is illustrated in C igures 1, 2D. C igure 1.D 4ees the introduction of a 'ossible lead male, first seen shar'ening a &nife, which follows to a shot of him loo&ing u'wards. 1 cut shows a shot of the moon which matches his head angle, thus suggesting narrative continuity- no sur'rises or subversions at this 'oint. 3owever, it is the strategic combination of this se%uence with the one that follows, which 'roduced one of the most iconic scenes in the 4urrealist film, and 'erha's arguably, of all the avant.garde films of the e'och2$" the eye slicing scene. C igure 2.D continues with the same continuity techni%ues, yet the sub*ect matter of the razor slicing the women)s eye, which cuts to a shot of a cloud moving 'ast the moon, then cuts to an animal)s eye being sliced, evo&ing shoc& not sim'ly because of a basal reaction to the image 'resented but also ho8 it is 'resented. The conventional techni%ues of continuity editing which follow from the first se%uence C igure 1.D create the association of the sliced animal)s eye to be re'resentative of that of the woman)s. 3owever, when we re.encounter the female 'rotagonist, there is no in*ury to be seen, therefore indicating another dis*unction in the narrative. The characters that are introduced are at once seemingly regular, yet also unfamiliar. 9lements of their acting (arouse the s'ectator)s 'sychological 'artici'ation) in a
$/ $0

!evy, 4ilvano- Surrealism! Surrealist Visuality, 9dinburgh ?niversity +ress, 1##/, 11" Williams, !inda- igures of Besire2 1 Theory and 1nalysis of 4urrealist film, ?niversity of :alifornia +ress, 1##2, ' 2" $" Turvey, ' 10/

"

4100231 scene, yet at the same time remain at a distance, as the viewer is disallowed normal associations of (em'athy, meaning and closure.)$# C igure $D for e,am'le, witnessed the death of a character on the street- the cyclist, as illustrated in the centre image, is enlivened with emotion, yet there is no continuity to his e,'ression of grief- in fact his attentions are swiftly transformed into that of desire, which could no doubt, 'rovide a 'erfect condition for 'sychoanalysis. This sense of incom'letion is also re'resented in C igure 3.D which suggests a 'ossible love interest between the woman and the man on the bicycle, indicated with the use of *um' cuts- yet this narrative is never fully concluded. 1s seen in C igure 4.D the woman)s over e,cited embrace, is then ine,'licably dis'laced from the man to his clothing. The audience is left wondering of a 'ossible demise, yet the man once again enters the narrative. (=f the elements of a 'ossible story seemed to surface, they FareG abru'tly interru'ted.) /0 The film forces the viewer to watch carefully instead of (submitting to any 're.established narrative construction,) as it sim'ly refuses to com'ly with any im'osed structure.

or the 4urrealists, the conventions associated with the cinematic event, the 'assive audience and their un%uestioned belief in the reality of the s'ectacle 'ro*ected, 'rovided a ready.made environment in which to begin to bridge reality with imagination. <y em'loying narrative structure, and techni%ues of continuity editing with the ob*ectivity inherent in the cinematic camera- the 4urrealists could create a diegetic situation which could be understood on a universal 'lane, without confusion or disorientation. The a''arent logical 'rogression of diegesis, was contradicted by the various tem'oral and 'hysical disru'tions, which therefore frustrated the viewers) narrative e,'ectations. <y em'loying conventional cinematic techni%ues, rather than e,'erimenting with innovative style and form, the 4urrealists were able to e,tend beyond the visual, to that of the 'sychological. The creation of disorientation, disru'tion and the surreality of the image, was therefore constructed entirely by the *u,ta'osition of the a''arent normality of the filmic structure, and the emotionally charged images and events, which negated any e,'lanation for meta'horic or metonymic o'erations. <y im'osing convention, the 4urrealists were thus able to successfully suggest the irrational and the une,'lained in a familiar reality, thereby foregrounding the true meaning of 4urrealism.
$#

/0

6ees, ' 4/ 4cheunemann, ' 210

4100231

European Avant-Garde Film: Essay $mages

10

4100231

igure 1 The eyeline matching shot of the moon which 'roceeds from the initial shot of the man is a conventional techni%ue found in mainstream cinema to im'ly narrative continuity.

igure 2. These three images also im'ose continuity editing, in order to im'ly the action of the slicing of the woman)s eye. The cloud 'assing over the moon is meta'horically re'resentative of the original action. Bue to the 'lacement of the shot in the se%uence, in relation to the 'revious se%uence of igure 1, the animal)s eye which is indeed sliced is associated with the initial image.

igure 3.

11

4100231 The image on the left sets the scene with an establishing shot which situates the woman in her environment. The 'roceeding *um' cuts are em'loyed to create a 'ossible narrative. The right image of the woman loo&ing u' indicates that she senses the cyclist)s a''roach.

igure 4. The embrace that is illustrated in the left image is dis'laced to the man)s clothing without e,'lanation. 3er amorous feelings for him as witnessed in the initial shot, are not re'eated, and the relationshi' between them becomes more ambiguous as the film 'rogresses.

igure $.

12

4100231 The re'resentation of death, grief and lust, are re'resented in a this figure. 1 heightened emotional se%uence, which negates any re'resentation of e,'lanation or conclusion.

igure /. 1 series of dissolves reveals a succession of seemingly dis'arate images, 'erha's related only by their ab*ect connotations. =t is *ust one e,am'le of a series of une,'lained, illogical events in the film.

European Avant-Garde Film: i%liography 1bel, 6ichard- French Film Theory and Criticism! " #istory("ntholo y )*+,- )*-*, +rinceton ?niversity +ress, 1##3 1c&er, 1lly- Reel 9omen! 5ioneers of Cinema, )6*: to the present, :ontinuum +ublishing :o. 1##1 1damowicz, 9lza- Surrealism! Crossin s(Frontiers, +eter !ang, 200/ 1rtauld, 1ntonin and 4usan 4ontag- "ntonin "rtaud, Selected 9ritin s, ?niversity of :alifornia +ress, 1#"" <ala&ian, 1nna- Surrealism! The Road to the "bsolute, ?niversity of :hicago +ress, 1#"/

13

4100231

<elton, 6obert 7ames- The ;eribboned ;omb! The Ima e of 9oman in &ale Surrealist "rt, ?niversity of :algary +ress., 1##$ <en*amin, Walter and 6olf Tiedermann- The "rcades 5ro<ect, 3arvard ?niversity +ress, 1### :alinescu, 8atei- Fi'e Faces of &odernity! &odernity, "'ant-0arde, 3ecadence, 4itsch, 5ostmodernism, Bu&e ?niversity +ress, 1#"0 :arroll, @oel- Interpretin the &o'in Ima e, :ambridge ?niversity +ress, 1##" :aws, 8ary 1nn- Surrealism! Themes and &o'ements, +haidon, 2004 :aws, 8ary 1nn and 6udolf 9. Kuenzli- Surrealism and 9omen, 8=T +ress, 1##1 :houcha, @adia- Surrealism and the 7ccult! Shamanism, &a ic, "lchemy and the ;irth of an "rtistic &o'ement, Bestiny <oo&s, 1##2 :linton, 1lan 6amon- &echanical 7ccult! "utomatism, &odernism, and the Specter of 5olitics, +eter !ang, 2004 :onley, Katherine- "utomatic 9oman! the Representation of 9omen in Surrealism, ?niversity of @ebras&a +ress, 1##/ :onley, Katherine and +ierre Taminiau,- Surrealism and its 7thers, Jale ?niversity +ress, 200/ 9arle, William- Surrealism in Film! ;eyond the Realist Sensibility, Transaction +ublishers, 2010 9burne, 7onathan +aul- Surrealism and the "rt of Crime, :ornell ?niversity +ress, 200" 9lder, 6. <ruce- ;ody of Vision! Representation of the ;ody in Recent Film and 5oetry, Wilfrid !aurier ?niversity +ress, 1##0 9lder, 6. <ruce- #armony and 3issent! Film and "'ant- 0arde "rt &o'ements in the /arlyTt8entieth Century, Wilfrid !aurier ?niversity +ress, 200" 9shleman, :layton- Companion Spider! /ssays, Wesleyan ?niversity +ress, 2001 litterman.!ewis, 4andy- To 3esire 3ifferently! Feminism and the French Cinema, ?niversity of =llinois +ress, 1##0 owler, :atherine- The /uropean Cinema Reader, 6outledge, 2002 ;ale, 8atthew- 3ada and Surrealism, +haidon +ress, 1##0 ;illoch, ;raeme- 9alter ;en<amin, Critical Constellations2 7ohn Wiley

14

4100231 L 4ons, 2002 3ammond, +aul- The Shado8 and Its Shado8! Surrealist 9ritin s on the Cinema, :ity !ights <oo&s, 2000 3ar'er, ;raema and 6ob 4tone- The %nsil'ered Screen! Surrealism on Film, Wallflower +ress, 2000 3arrison, :harles and +aul Wood- "rt and Theory, )*++- 1+++! "n "ntholo y of Chan in Ideas, Wiley. <lac&well, 200# 3ayward, 4usan and ;inette 5incendeau- French Film! Te=t and Conte=ts, 6outledge, 2000 3edges, =nez- .an ua es of Re'olt! 3ad and Surrealist .iterature and Film, Bu&e ?niversity +ress, 1#"3 3ill, 7ohn and +amela :hurch ;ibson CedD- The "'ant-0ardes and /uropean Cinema before )*-+, E,ford ?niversity +ress, 1### 3ughes, 1le, and 7ames 4. Williams- 0ender and French Cinema, <erg, 2001 Kadri, 6aihan- Re-Ima inin .ife! 5hilosophical 5essimism and the Re'olution of Surrealism, airleigh Bic&enson ?niversity +ress, 2011 Ka'lan, 1lice Jaeger- Reproductions of ;anality! Fascism, .iterature, and French Intellectual .ife, ?niversity of 8innesota +ress, 1#"/ Ka'lin, 1.- 9omen and Film, 6outledge, 2002 Kay, Karyn and ;erald +eary- 9omen and the Cinema! " Critical "ntholo y, Button, 1#00 King, @orman- "bel 0ance! " 5olitics of Spectacle, < = +ublishing, 1#"4 Knowles, Kim- " Cinematic "rtist! The Films of &an Ray, +eter !ang, 200# Kracauer, 4iefried- Theory of Film! the Redemption of 5hysical Reality, +rinceton ?niversity +ress, 1##0 Kuenzli, 6udolf 9.- 3ada and Surrealist Film, 8=T +ress, :ambridge, 8assachusetts!ondon, 9ngland, 1##/ !a ountain, 8arc 7.- 3ali and 5ostmodernism! This is Not an /ssence, 4?@J +ress, 1##0 !evy, 4ilvano- Surrealism! Surrealist Visuality, 9dinburgh ?niversity +ress, 1##/ 8ayne, 7udith- The 9oman at the 4eyhole! Feminism and 9omens Cinema, =ndiana ?niversity +ress, 1##0

1$

4100231

8atthews, 7. 3.- Surrealism and Film, ?niversity of 8ichigan +ress, 1#01 @ichols, <ill- Representin Reality! Issues and Concepts in 3ocumentary2 =ndiana ?niversity +ress, 1##1 E)+ray, 8ichael- "'ant- 0arde Film! Forms, Themes and 5assions, Wallflower +ress, !ondon, 2003 &ramaggiore" 'aria and (om Wallis) Film! " Critical Introduction, !auren*e +ing &u%lishing" 200, 6abinovitch, :elia- Surrealism and the Sacred! 5o8er, /ros, and the 7ccult in &odern "rt, Westview +ress, 2002 6amanathan, ;eetha- Feminist "uteurs! Readin 9omens Films, Wallflower +ress, 200/ 6ees, 1. !- " #istory of /=perimental Film and Video! From the Canonical "'ant0arde to Contemporary ;ritish 5ractise, < = <oo&, +algrave 8acmillan, 2010 6ichardson, 8ichael- Surrealism and Cinema, <erg, 200/ 4adoul, ;eorges and +eter 8orris- 3ictionary of Films, ?niversity of :alifornia +ress, 1#02 4cheunemann, Bietrich- "'ant-0arde Film, 6odo'i, 2000 4hwartz, 5anessa 6. and 7eanneene 8. +rzyblys&i- The Nineteenth- Century Visual Culture Reader, 6outledge, 2004 4he''ard, 6ichard- &odernism, 3ada, 5ostmodernism, @orthwestern ?niversity +ress, 4'iteri, 6aymond and Bonald !a:oss- Surrealism, 5olitics and Culture, 1shgate +ublishing, !td., 2003 4teiner, ?we and 8ichael Win&ler- 9alter ;en<amin! "n Introduction to his 9or$ and Thou ht, ?niversity of :hicago +ress, 2010 Talens, 7enaro- The ;randed /ye! ;unuels %n chien "ndalou, ?niversity of 8innesota +ress, 1##3 Turvey, 8alcolm- The Filmin of &odern .ife! /uropean "'ant- 0arde Film of the )*1+s, Ectober <oo&s, 8=T +ress, :ambridge, 8assachusetts- !ondon, 9ngland, 2011 5errone, William 9. <- The "'ant- 0arde Feature Film! " Critical #istory, 8c arland, 2011

1/

4100231 5icari, 7ustin- &ad &uses and the /arly Surrealists, 8c arland, 2011 Williams, 1lan !arson- Republic of Ima es! " #istory of French Filmma$in , 3arvard ?niversity +ress, 1##2 Williams, !inda- Fi ures of 3esire! " Theory and "nalysis of Surrealist film, ?niversity of :alifornia +ress, 1##2 Williams, Tami 8ichelle- ;eyond Impressions! The .ife and Films of 0ermaine 3ulac from "esthetics to 5olitics, +roMuest, 2000 Winter, 7ay- Sites of &emory, Sites of &ournin ! the 0reat 9ar in /uropean Cultural #istory, :ambridge ?niversity +ress, 1##" -ournals: <runius, 7ac%ues, 6ise and Becline of an (1vant.;arde)) in 5en uin Film Re'ie8, 1#4"

10