Dissertation in Which There Appear Lost Punchlines, Dreadful Puns, Low Resolution, Etc.: on the Failure of Humour in Avant-Garde Film and Video
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
DISSERTATION IN WHICH THERE APPEAR LOST PUNCHLINES, DREADFUL PUNS, LOW RESOLUTION, ETC.: ON THE FAILURE OF HUMOUR IN AVANT-GARDE FILM AND VIDEO CAMERON MONEO A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN CINEMA & MEDIA STUDIES YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO June 2019 © Cameron Moneo, 2019 ABSTRACT This dissertation explores the overlooked functions that humour has served in American avant-garde film and video, arguing that humour is involved consistently in many of the key operations and philosophies that have energized these moving image practices. Taking humour as an alternative historical and interpretive lens, this dissertation conducts new readings of three major formations or “moments in the discourse” of the American avant-gardes. These are: underground film, structural film, and early feminist video art. A branching theme of these readings is failure, seen to carry complex meanings and humorous pleasures in various cases of avant-garde activity. The introductory chapter details the propagandization of failure in the 1960s underground cinema, and argues that a divisive brand of humour highlights the sense of the “avant-garde” in this cinema. Chapter 1 re-conceptualizes the “humourless” structural film movement of the 60s and 70s, arguing that, for filmmakers like Michael Snow, the idea of structure is not a dogmatic working principle but something of a ruse, one whose limits are meant to be teased, pushed, and exceeded. Moving to early feminist video art, Chapter 2 emphasizes the importance of humour in the project of articulating feminist political horizons. In videotapes by Susan Mogul and Martha Rosler, performative nonchalance and lack of preciousness about low-grade equipment can be seen as forms of humorous “delivery,” which stay utopically open to future re-articulations. Circling back to underground film, Chapter 3 locates humour in the failure to distinguish sharply between the avant-garde and popular culture. Through readings of humour in queer underground film, and then in more recent pop appropriation videos, this chapter illustrates the hilarity, critique, and utopian feeling that can result when the “effects” of pop and of the avant-garde are brought excessively close. ii This dissertation assembles conceptual scaffolding for understanding humorous failure as a variable avant-garde theme, drawing upon such scholars as Matei Călinescu, Jack Halberstam, and José Esteban Muñoz. With failure in mind, this dissertation further reflects on the instability of humour itself as an object of study, and as a device, attitude, or value that might be put to work for us. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First of all, I have Michael Zryd to thank for getting me to this stage. Mike was incredibly patient and helpful in times of struggle with this dissertation, and challenged me when I needed it most. Simply put, Mike is the gold standard of what it means to be a mentor, scholar, and educator in the academy. An underrated thing Mike did was invite me to play outdoor basketball with him and a group of regulars, which led to my playing rec league hoops on a continuous basis during my doctoral studies. I met many new friends this way, got plenty of exercise, and won three championships. I feel healthier in body and mind for Mike’s encouragement to get out and play. Thank you to Laura Levin and Brian Price for their careful and critical feedback in the crucial stages before defense. To the rest of my stellar oral exam committee, Marc Couroux, Janine Marchessault, and Michele Pierson, thank you for a challenging, stimulating, and fun discussion. You have given me a new resolve with this project. In the York Cinema & Media Studies Program: Thank you to Sharon Hayashi for all her help in seeing this dissertation to defense. I owe a tremendous thanks to Kuowei Lee for his tireless efforts to keep me informed and on track. Kuowei has also been a valued friend all these years, and one of my favourite people to talk movies with. Tess Takahashi fostered this project early on by asking me to guest lecture on avant- garde humour. Tess has remained a constant support and inspiration over the years. I learn so much from her scholarship, and leave our conversations feeling grounded and re-energized. Special shout-out (meow, arf) to Tess and Mike’s pets, for making me feel wanted in their home. I have benefited in innumerable ways from connections with colleagues. I’m especially thankful to Chase Joynt, for his intellectual creativity and friendship. Eli Horwatt shared articles iv and ideas that have significantly altered my thinking. I am grateful for moments of fellow feeling with Agnès Domanski, Nick Fernandes, Traci Mark, Jessica Mulvogue, Tamás Nagypál, Yuval Sagiv, Claudia Sicondolfo, Genne Spears, and others. Many thanks to the staffs at Vtape, the Art Gallery of Ontario, and the CFMDC for their assistance with resources. Thanks also to Michael Robinson for sharing links to his videos. Thank you to Shana Dowdeswell and family, for making an impact on my life. Clint Enns has been a stalwart companion throughout the researching and writing of this dissertation. I will miss the long hours we poured into library time together, the spirited chats over coffee, and hope we find an excuse to do it again. Clint has influenced me more than anyone when it comes to humour in the avant-garde. Clint lives this stuff in his very being. My life wouldn’t be the same without the steady friendship of Stephen Broomer. He has influenced immeasurably my thinking, my love of the avant-garde, my sense of humour. I’ve gained so much from talks with Steve, and from watching films alongside him. He’s also one of the funniest people I’ve ever met – who else could crack a brilliant Beatles joke in the middle of La région centrale? Love and thanks to my sisters, Jess and Jenny, and brothers, Jeff and Curt, who still know better than anyone how to make me laugh. “Thank you” doesn’t begin to express my debt to my parents, Cal and Judy. Their support has been unfailing. My deepest love and gratitude go to Martha Cabral, who changed everything. I can’t picture being here without her. This dissertation received funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council and the Ontario Graduate Scholarship. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………… ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………………………….. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………....vi LIST OF IMAGES…………………………………………………………………………….... vii INTRODUCTION TO THE FAILURE OF AVANT-GARDE HUMOUR…………………………………………...1 CHAPTER 1 STRUCTURAL FILM HUMOUR: THE CRUDE AND COPIOUS CASE OF MICHAEL SNOW………………………………… 49 CHAPTER 2 “BLACK AND WHITE, PORTAPAK, WHAT THE HELL”: HUMOUR IN EARLY FEMINIST VIDEO ART…………………………………………….. 127 CHAPTER 3 PAGAN POP-CULTS IN THE RENTED DESERT, OR THE HUMOUR OF LOST CAUSES AND SPECIAL EFFECTS……………………………. 169 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………… 254 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………… 263 vi LIST OF IMAGES Image 1………..Loony Tom, the Happy Lover [dir. James Broughton, 1951]…………………..18 Image 2………..The Queen of Sheba Meets the Atom Man [dir. Ron Rice, 1963]……………... 18 Image 3………..Rameau’s Nephew . [dir. Michael Snow, 1974]…………………………... 119 Image 4………..Rameau’s Nephew . [dir. Michael Snow, 1974]…………………………... 119 Image 5………..Take Off [dir. Susan Mogul, 1974]…………………………………………... 160 Image 6………..Semiotics of the Kitchen [dir. Martha Rosler, 1975]…………………………. 160 Image 7………..These Hammers Don’t Hurt Us [dir. Michael Robinson, 2010]……………... 239 Image 8………..Mad Ladders [dir. Michael Robinson, 2015]…………………………………239 Image 9………..21 Chitrakoot [dir. Shambhavi Kaul, 2012]…………………………………. 251 Image 10………Mount Song [dir. Shambhavi Kaul, 2013]…………………………………… 251 vii INTRODUCTION TO THE FAILURE OF AVANT-GARDE HUMOUR God forbid art be funny. - Ilene Segalove1 This is a study of humour in avant-garde film and video. I must confess I have had my occasional doubts about this project. How can I forget the many laughless nights spent in the hushed, reverent atmosphere of screening spaces for avant-garde cinema, where amidst long stretches of pin-drop silence one is more likely to hear the sound of a neighbour’s belly gurgling from hunger than quaking with laughter? Attend a major festival showcase for experimental work, and humour is bound to surface so rarely that when it does the audience can be felt to heave with a collective overcompensation of guffaws. (In my experience, the prospects for laughter seem brighter depending on how many young artists are represented in a program, for reasons that might become clearer as my argument unfolds.) It is understandable, then, if humour in avant-garde cinema often comes advertised as oxymoron or exception, a break from the challenging and serious work that forms the major, dare I say popular, conception of this field of art practice.2 As with all matters humorous, there is a lesson about context to be learned here. Historically avant-garde film has travelled through many spaces, some more inhibited than others. A convenient archetype of the “serious” avant-garde viewing situation is the Invisible Cinema (1970-74), the infamously authoritarian experimental theatre designed by filmmaker Peter Kubelka, housed in the first “museum” of avant-garde film, Anthology Film Archives in New York City. Kubelka’s design for the theatre – “shell-like” seats individually partitioned and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 Quoted in Carole Ann Klonarides, “ILENE SEGALOVE [Interview],” in California Video: Artists and Histories, ed. Glenn Phillips (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2008), 204. 2 For an example of the oxymoronic approach, see Blake Williams, “Punch Lines,” Little White Lies 68 (February 2017): 23–25. 1 hooded, as well as severely raked to reduce sightline obstruction; an all-encompassing blackness in the architecture, which would utterly vanish before the light of the movie screen – was meant to construct, in Kubelka’s words, “a community that is not disturbing to others.”3 As a strict policy, no latecomers were allowed into the theatre, and spectators were encouraged to keep noise to a minimum during the films.