The short films of Kenneth Anger are certainly NOT for the casual film goer! The best way to describe them is avant-garde--and often make little sense, as they are not meant to be shown to the masses. Some are incredibly artistic--like filmed work of art. Some are really cheaply made and definitely look it. Regardless, they are a challenge to watch and I very strongly recommend you see them with his commentary activated. So why would I see these shorts? Well, in a recent interview I noticed that John Waters credits Anger for much of his inspiration. And, since I have seen all the films of Waters that are available (a couple very early ones aren't), it seems natural I'd give Anger's films a try. This and four other reviews are best on the DVD "Films of Kenneth Anger: Volume 1".
Fireworks is the first and definitely least short on the DVD. No matter what you think of the contents, the quality of the film is dubious, as it's rather grainy, the shots are often wobbly and it looks like a home movie camera was used (I truly think it was). Aethetically, it's awful. As for the story, there are so many possible interpretations. When I first saw it without the director's commentary, I thought it was a homo-erotic film about the conflict between the macho veneer of sailors (with their gay-bashing) and their own covert desires to engage in homosexual sex. I was surprised when Anger did NOT say this was the theme, but it was supposed to be the recreation of a dream he'd had some time ago. Still, there is a lot of erotic and violent imagery of semi-naked men as well as phallic imagery (often that is being destroyed). Frankly, it made my brain hurt and I was praying the rest of the shorts would get better--which they fortunately did!
Fireworks is the first and definitely least short on the DVD. No matter what you think of the contents, the quality of the film is dubious, as it's rather grainy, the shots are often wobbly and it looks like a home movie camera was used (I truly think it was). Aethetically, it's awful. As for the story, there are so many possible interpretations. When I first saw it without the director's commentary, I thought it was a homo-erotic film about the conflict between the macho veneer of sailors (with their gay-bashing) and their own covert desires to engage in homosexual sex. I was surprised when Anger did NOT say this was the theme, but it was supposed to be the recreation of a dream he'd had some time ago. Still, there is a lot of erotic and violent imagery of semi-naked men as well as phallic imagery (often that is being destroyed). Frankly, it made my brain hurt and I was praying the rest of the shorts would get better--which they fortunately did!
