Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:02:57 -0700
From: biomorph-AT-ix.netcom.com (Wm. Dubin)
Subject: Re: Four Films


Hi Carlos,

No, I don't at all deny the use of sources from the past (I certainly 
use my fair share of them). However, I see this as a very delicate 
balance, between allowing the influance of a respected artist to FILTER 
through you, and to distill into something UNIQUELY yours, even while 
rooted in a shared past (or shared images), and the person who "lifts" 
(steals is another way to say it), images from artists either without 
understanding the process by which these images were arrived at, or 
without paying the other artist the respect due the original creation.

This can be a pretty "fine line", I admitt, but with the ability today 
to search the worlds history for other people's ideas and images, it is 
getting easier and easier to locate "source material". On the far-end 
of this is Jeff Koons, of  course. I come from a place in art, where 
having your work even superficially look like someone elses, was the 
worst thing possible. This place deteriorated during the time I was in 
art school, to the point where fellow students ran to the news stands 
to get the latest issues of recent art magazines in order to know what 
"images" were "in" and what they should look like in their own 
paintings. So, you can tell, that this is a very critical point for me.

Now for my eyes, David Lynch simply "incorporates" material, he doesn't 
"build" on it, it doesn't become his imagery, there is no Lynch there. 
By this I mean, if I had a completely unknown David Lynch film, and I 
showed it to a room of people, would most of them recognize it as a 
David Lynch film? I am inclined to doubt this.(However, I will also 
admitt that this might also be impossible with all cinema, so please 
read this as an example only, not as a specific challenge).

I also don't feel that NATURAL BORN KILLERS is in any way Surrealiste. 
Its a really entertaining film, and I enjoyed it immensely, but I saw 
nothing Surrealiste about it. Nor would I relate it to Breton's 
sentance about the most pure Surrealiste act.... if for no other 
reason, the pure surrealiste act Breton was referring to, was as 
conscious a decision as the surrealiste position on suscide is. 
Where-as, those fun-folks from NATURAL BORN KILLERS and PULP FICTION 
were simply "acting out"  actions which were no more conscious, nor did 
they involve philosophical choice, any more than a bird does in 
building a nest. A pure surrealiste act, at least in my understanding, 
requires more than just a psychotic-synaspe-reaction.

By the way, I heard somewhere, that Breton came to regret that sentance 
(I'm sorry I don't have the source), and I, for one, not only don't 
regret it, I think its still the perfect description of Surrealisme.

But, onward, perhaps I'm also bringing some Existentialism into my way 
of viewing actions. I'm thinking here of Camus' "grateatous gesture". I 
would also like to add the example of one of my favourite painter's, 
Richard Dadd, who carried a list of prominant world leaders on to a 
train, vowing to kill all of them if the sun rose in a pre-concieved 
way. Evidently it didn't, so he settled on killing his father only.

Now you mention that both Oliver Stone and Breton were accussed of 
"promotion of violence". Yes, true, as have others who were creative. 
Oddly, the REAL killers (the state, the police,the arms makers, the 
religionists and the milatary) are rarely called killers. However, 
being accussed of the same "crime" doesn't make Stone anymore a 
surrealist, than it makes Breton a film-maker.


Surrealism is SUPPOSED TO BE a "project of subversion", but I'm not 
certain it is any longer. Indeed, I wonder if anything can be any 
longer. Simply being aware of what goes on in ones enviroment on a 
daily basis quickly leads you to a point of such levels of over-kill, 
that it seems impossible to go any further, and daily horror becomes 
humor (as in PULP FICTION), but this doesn't mean it entersthe Surreal, 
it simply becomes REAL. There was a quote, from WW-2, reguarding the 
concintration camps... something like how the excess of nazi horror 
finally lead to banality. This is where, I feel, these films simply end 
up. I would like you to develope more about SUBVERSION, because I feel 
its VERY important, and an area thats totally lacking in surrealiste 
discussions.

I am glad you have pointed out the influance of Humour Noir, as it is 
very often completely forgotten about also. And, of course, humor is 
VERY subversive...

I was not aware of the problems between Cesariny and Cruzeiro, but the 
condemnation of one surrealist by another seems to have been a built-in 
part of the movement (if not human nature). Breton & Aragon published a 
piece condemming Ernst & Miro for contributing to the Ballet Russe in 
1926.

As to films like THE COMPANY OF WOLVES being "a terrifdic story about 
love and desire", I find myself to far over the line of daily reality 
to be able to believe this for myself. Which in no way negates the way 
you see it, but it does point out the divergences in personalities, as 
you mention... and yes, these divergences are very necessary as part of 
these discussions.

Wm.