<\/p>\n
EXPANDED CINEMA
\n<\/strong>Friday 3 May 2002, at 7:30pm
\nLondon Tate Modern Level 7 East<\/p>\nCASTLE ONE<\/strong>
\nMalcolm Le Grice, 1966, b\/w, sound, 20 min
\n<\/strong>\u201cThe light bulb was a Brechtian device to make the spectator aware of himself. I don\u2019t like to think of an audience in the mass, but of the individual observer and his behaviour. What he goes through while he watches is what the film is about. I\u2019m interested in the way the individual constructs variety from his perceptual intake.\u201d \u2014Malcolm Le Grice, Films and Filming, February 1971<\/p>\n \u201c\u2026 totally Kafkaesque, but also filmically completely different from anyone else because of the rawness<\/em>. The Americans are always talking about \u2018rawness\u2019, but it\u2019s never raw. When the English talk about \u2018raw\u2019, they don\u2019t just talk about it, it really is<\/em> raw \u2013 it\u2019s grey, it\u2019s rainy, it\u2019s grainy, you can hardly see what\u2019s there. The material really is<\/em> there at the same time<\/em> as the image. With the Germans, it\u2019s a high-class image<\/em> of material, optically reproduced and glossy. The Americans are half-way there, but the English stuff looked like it really was<\/em> home-made, artisanal, and yet amazingly structured. And I certainly thought Castle One<\/em> was the most powerful film I\u2019d seen, ever\u2026\u201d \u2014Peter Gidal, interview with Mark Webber, 2001<\/p>\n\u201cMalcolm said to me \u201cIdeally in this film there should be a real light bulb hanging next to the screen, but that\u2019s not possible.\u201d And I said \u201cIt\u2019s not possible to hang a light bulb?\u201d He said \u201cWell, I don\u2019t see how we could possibly do this.\u201d I said \u201cWell the only question is how do we turn it on and off at the right moments? \u2026 Are you able to do that as a live performance?\u201d He looked at me like the world was going to end! And I said \u201cThe switch will be there.\u201d\u201d \u2014Jack Moore, interview with Mark Webber, 2001<\/p>\n
TAKE MEASURE<\/strong>
\nWilliam Raban, 1973, colour, silent, 2 min
\n<\/strong>\u201cThe thing that strikes me going into a cinema, because it is such a strange space and it\u2019s organized to allow you to get enveloped by the whole illusion of film, when you try and think of it in terms of real dimensions it becomes very difficult. The idea of a sixty foot throw or a hundred foot throw from the projector to the screen just doesn\u2019t enter into the equation. So I thought the idea of making a piece that made that distance between the projector and the screen more tangible was quite an interesting thing to do.\u201d \u2014William Raban, interview with Mark Webber, 2001<\/p>\n\u201cTake Measure<\/em> is usually the shortest of my films, measuring in feet that intangible space separating screen from projector box (which is counted on the screen by the image of a film synchronizer). Instead of being fed into the projector from a reel, the film is strung between projector and screen. When the film starts, the film snakes backwards through the audience as it is consumed by the projector.\u201d \u2014William Raban, Perspectives on British Avant-Garde Film catalogue, 1977<\/p>\nDIAGONAL
\nWilliam Raban, 1973, colour, sound, 6 min
\n<\/strong>\u201cDiagonal <\/em>is a film for three projectors, though the diagonally arranged projector beams need not be contained within a single flat screen area. This film works well in a conventional film theatre when the top left screen spills over the ceiling and the bottom right projects down over the audience. It is the same image on all three projectors, a double-exposed flickering rectangle of the projector gate sliding diagonally into and out of frame. Focus is on the projector shutter, hence the flicker. This film is \u2018about\u2019 the projector gate, the plane where the film frame is caught by the projected light beam.\u201d \u2014William Raban, Perspectives on British Avant-Garde Film catalogue, 1977<\/p>\n\u201cThe first great excitement is finding the idea, making its acquaintance, and courting it through the elaborate ritual of film production. The second excitement is the moment of projection when the film becomes real and can be shared with the audience. The former enjoyment is unique and privileged; the second is not, and so long as the film exists, it is infinitely repeatable.\u201d \u2014William Raban, Arts Council Film-Makers on Tour catalogue, 1980<\/p>\n
HAND GRENADE
\nGill Eatherley, 1971, colour, sound, 8 min
\n<\/strong>\u201cAlthough the word \u2018expanded\u2019 cinema has also been used for the open\/gallery size\/multi screen presentation of film, this \u2018expansion\u2019 (could still but) has not yet<\/em> proved satisfactory \u2013 for my own work anyway. Whether you are dealing with a single postcard size screen or six ten-foot screens, the problems are basically the same \u2013 to try to establish a more positively dialectical relationship with the audience. I am concerned (like many others) with this balance between the audience and the film \u2013 and the noetic problems involved.\u201d \u2014Gill Eatherley, 2nd International Avant-Garde Film Festival programme notes, 1973<\/p>\n\u201cMalcolm Le Grice helped me with Hand Grenade<\/em>. First of all I did these stills, the chairs traced with light. And then I wanted it to all move, to be in motion, so we started to use 16mm. We shot only a hundred feet on black and white. It took ages, actually, because it\u2019s frame by frame. We shot it in pitch dark, and then we took it to the Co-op and spent ages printing it all out on the printer there. This is how I first got involved with the Co-op.\u201d \u2014Gill Eatherley, interview with Mark Webber, 2001<\/p>\nLIGHT MUSIC
\nLis Rhodes, 1975-77, b\/w, sound, 20 min
\n<\/strong>\u201cLis Rhodes has conducted a thorough investigation into the relationship between the shapes and rhythms of lines and their tonality when printed as sound. Her work Light Music<\/em> is in a series of \u2018moveable sections\u2019. The film does not have a rigid pattern of sequences, and the final length is variable, within one-hour duration. The imagery is restricted to lines of horizontal bars across the screen: there is variety in the spacing (frequency), their thickness (amplitude), and their colour and density (tone). One section was filmed from a video monitor that produced line patterns on the screen that varied according to sound signals generated by an oscillator; so initially it is the sound which produces the image. Taking this filmed material to the printing stage, the same lines that produced the picture are printed onto the optical soundtrack edge of the film: the picture thus produces the sound. Other material was shot from a rostrum camera filming black and white grids, and here again at the printing stage, the picture is printed onto the film soundtrack. Sometimes the picture \u2018zooms\u2019 in on the grid, so that you actually \u2018hear\u2019 the zoom, or more precisely, you hear an aural equivalent to the screen image. This equivalence cannot be perfect, because the soundtrack reproduces the frame lines that you don\u2019t see, and the film passes at even speed over the projector sound scanner, but intermittently through the picture gate. Lis Rhodes avoids rigid scoring procedures for scripting her films. This work may be experienced (and was perhaps conceived) as having a musical form, but the process of composition depends on various chance operations, and upon the intervention of the filmmaker upon the film and film machinery. This is consistent with the presentation where the film does not crystallize into one finished form. This is a strong work, possessing infinite variety within a tightly controlled framework.\u201d \u2014William Raban, Perspectives on British Avant-Garde Film catalogue, 1977<\/p>\n\u201cThe film is not complete as a totality; it could well be different and still achieve its purpose of exploring the possibilities of optical sound. It is as much about sound as it is about image; their relationship is necessarily dependent as the optical soundtrack \u2018makes\u2019 the music. It is the machinery itself which imposes this relationship. The image throughout is composed of straight lines. It need not have been.\u201d \u2014Lis Rhodes, A Perspective on English Avant-Garde Film catalogue, 1978<\/p>\n
LINE DESCRIBING A CONE
\nAnthony McCall, 1973, b\/w, silent, 30 min
\n<\/strong>\u201cOnce I started really working with film and feeling I was making films, making works of media, it seemed to me a completely natural thing to come back and back and back, to come more away from a pro-filmic event and into the process of filmmaking itself. And at the time it all boiled down to some very simple questions. In my case, and perhaps in others, the question being something like \u201cWhat would a film be if it was only a film?\u201d Carolee Schneemann and I sailed on the SS Canberra from Southampton to New York in January 1973, and when we embarked, all I had was that question. When I disembarked I already had the plan for Line Describing a Cone<\/em> fully-fledged in my notebook. You could say it was a mid-Atlantic film! It\u2019s been the story of my life ever since, of course, where I\u2019m located, where my interests are, that business of \u201cAm I English or am I American?\u201d So that was when I conceived Line Describing a Cone<\/em> and then I made it in the months that followed.\u201d \u2014Anthony McCall, interview with Mark Webber, 2001<\/p>\n\u201cOne important strategy of expanded cinema radically alters the spatial discreteness of the audience vis-\u00e0-vis the screen and the projector by manipulating the projection facilities in a manner which elevates their role to that of the performance itself, subordinating or eliminating the role of the artist as performer. The films of Anthony McCall are the best illustration of this tendency. In Line Describing a Cone<\/em>, the conventional primacy of the screen is completely abandoned in favour of the primacy of the projection event. According to McCall, a screen is not even mandatory: The audience is expected to move up and down, in and out of the beam \u2013 this film cannot be fully experienced by a stationary spectator. This means that the film demands a multi-perspectival viewing situation, as opposed to the single-image\/single-perspective format of conventional films or the multi-image\/single-perspective format of much expanded cinema. The shift of image as a function of shift of perspective is the operative principle of the film. External content is eliminated, and the entire film consists of the controlled line of light emanating from the projector; the act of appreciating the film \u2013 i.e., \u2018the process of its realisation\u2019 \u2013 is the content.\u201d \u2014Deke Dusinberre, \u201cOn Expanding Cinema\u201d, Studio International, November\/December 1975<\/p>\nBack to top<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
EXPANDED CINEMA Friday 3 May 2002, at 7:30pm London Tate Modern Level 7 East British filmmakers led a drive beyond the screen and the theatre, and their innovations in expanded cinema inevitably took the work into galleries. After questioning the role of the spectator, they began to examine the light beam, its volume and presence […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[111],"tags":[118],"class_list":["post-3495","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-shoot-shoot-shoot","tag-shoot-shoot-shoot"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/markwebber.org.uk\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3495","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/markwebber.org.uk\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/markwebber.org.uk\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/markwebber.org.uk\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/markwebber.org.uk\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3495"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/markwebber.org.uk\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3495\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/markwebber.org.uk\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3495"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/markwebber.org.uk\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3495"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/markwebber.org.uk\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3495"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}