Experimental films that make sense?

FrankLad

FrankLad

That might sound like a strange question, but I'm wondering if you guys can list some films you've seen in the "experimental" category that didn't leave you totally going "whaaaaaaaat?!?!" at the end.

I'm a fan of having something make sense because I always thought of "you-interpret-it-yourself" as a kind of cop-out.

I realize this is a subjective thing because even major motion pictures don't make sense for some, while they do for others. But what's so appealing about experimental films is they are visually striking, and in most cases have well-produced sound. I'm just looking for suggestions of some that at least have some obvious meaning.
 
David Lynch's Inland Empire makes sense, but only after repeated viewings.

Edit: and even then, some scenes don't make sense (all the ones with the rabbits in). But I understand the basic storyline and idea.
 
LessThanThreeLeo said:
David Lynch's Inland Empire makes sense, but only after repeated viewings.
Edit: and even then, some scenes don't make sense (all the ones with the rabbits in). But I understand the basic storyline and idea.
Click to expand...

Funny.....Not to argue....:) Justin Theroux & Laura Dern stated that even David Lynch had no clue what the movie was about.. but, yes like you after watching it a few times you see wassup in a way, kind of... err maybe.

Im working on a short right now that was influenced by Inland Empire and Polanski's Repulsion. I want to do an alternate style film meself.

I LOVE the whatever you think is right kind of flick. it challenges you to think ! It might be about what I want you to think about, but you will think non the less. I love to have the viewer go "WTF"????


Breathless was a different style of movie w/ the jump cuts at the time it was made.
 
My immediate thought was that the title of this thread was a contradiction in terms....

...but perhaps there are some examples. I wouldn't classify Inland Empire as particularly experimental. It's certainly alternative but I wouldn't throw it into the experimental film category (but then again I'm not a film historian). I can't think of any examples at the moment but the most interesting experimental films tend to focus on style, technique and originality rather than on story structure and plotting, so that's why they end up with the 'Whaaat?' moment at the end...
 
Boy did I LOVE Lost Highway! But I'll refrain from turning this into a David Lynch love fest, which I am perfectly capable of doing ;)

I feel that "experimental" filmmaking can fall into several categories; ones that challenge the viewer visually, thematically, musically, with editing, (as IndieTalk posted with TimeCode) with style of shooting, etc. Methods considered experimental to some, by filmmakers and audiences alike, might be standard practice for others. Sometimes there's a combination of elements and sometimes they are stand alone.

I need to check out The Diving Bell and The Butterfly. That one sounded very experimental, which doesn't surprise me since it was made by an artist.

And I have not seen Gaspar Noe's new film Enter the Void but from what I've read and from watching the trailer, that seems to be the experimental film of the moment.

Kubrick's 2001 could very well be considered an experimental film, yeah?

Great topic!

And I straddle both approaches -- sometimes it's great to give people what they want and expect, other times it's great to throw that out the window for the WTF? approach!
 
Last edited:
I would say that there is a difference between narrative, commercial films which use original ideas (like Timecode) and what one might call 'experimental films'.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, for example, could never be considered an experimental film. Sure it's in many ways unique, but it's also a story that is told in a refreshing way of getting from the start to the finish.

I think the point of experimental films have got to be the experiment. Where Timecode is experimental with the use of multiple screens this is really to supplement/augment the storytelling, whereas with a truly experimental film the point, from A to Z, is to show things in a different way. I think that's why this question first arose, because it many ways they are incompatible...
 
Thanks for all the responses, guys!

I have to say, David Lynch's stuff is a bit "out there" for me. No disrespect intended.
The first short of his I ever watched was the alphabet one. Watched a few seconds of it and that was more than enough for me. Creepy, man.
 
There's a short film called "Short Film" which I can't locate right now. It's hard to search for, but pretty much what the thread called for.

I like Mulholland Drive and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind for full length examples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top