19 October 2014

Bahar Samadi and Navid Salajegheh @ The Guesthouse, Cork


We are very pleased to announce that Iranian/Paris based artists Bahar Samadi and Navid Salajegheh will occupy The Guesthouse, Cork for a three week residency from the 7th of November 2014 concluding with an exhibition on the 30th.

“Non-peaceful Coexistence of Numbers and Dates” is the title of the project proposed by Bahar (filmmaker) and Navid (visual artist). A series of found-materials (still photographs and film) will be transformed and composed into a complex installation that will mysteriously haunt with themes of loss and death. The artists will open this exhibition with a special, once-off performance.

This is the second collaboration between EFS and The Guesthouse, the first being with filmmaker Jann Clavadetscher in 2013. This was part of an event called “SeeSound”, a day of film/sound screenings, performance and installations by members of EFS and friends at the Cork Film Centre Gallery as part of IndieCork Film Festival, curated by Maximilian Le Cain. Once again, we would like to thank the Guesthouse for their continued support of our work.

A selection of Bahar’s shorts will screen as part of the “Iranian Underground Programme” in Cork Film Festival on 8th & 9th of November. (Details: HERE & HERE)

Her work will also screen as part of the second EFS programme of films at Temple Bar Gallery & Studios on November 24th. (Details: HERE)

Polar Nights (2014) Complete


The feature film "Polar Nights" by Dean Kavanagh is now complete. Produced by Experimental Film Society & Easter Film Group 2014. Trailer HERE

10 October 2014

Forbidden Symmetries in The Austrian Film Museum

A section of the collaborative feature film “Forbidden Symmetries (2014)” by Dean Kavanagh, Maximilian Le Cain & Rouzbeh Rashidi will play at The Austrian Film Museum on Wednesday 26th November 18:30 PM as part of The Invisible Cinema – Film, Art, History, and the Museum (Lectures and Conversations: Nicole Brenez, Chris Dercon, Noam M. Elcott, Daniel Fitzpatrick, Lars Henrik Gass, Siegfried Mattl, Winfried Pauleit and Jacques Rancière).

Expended Cinema – Curating Cinema’s Futures During an Era of Transition Daniel Fitzpatrick

“In relation to cinema’s digital futures a time for prognosis seems now to have passed, apparently all we need do to understand the shape of this digital future is look around us. In spite of the rhetoric that initially supported this transition it can seem that the digital ‘revolution’ (an awkward term for a transformation that has witnessed a large degree of unreflective acquiescence) has perhaps not led to the ‘opening up’ of possibility it once promised but rather to a further calcification of ‘what cinema is’, at least if we are to consider it in terms of its more visible, more mainstream iterations. While the dematerialisation of cinema now seems like a distant memory its despecification gathers apace. The following article will consider several instances of curatorial practice iterated in relation to the cinema’s recent transitional era. It will include references to gallery exhibitions like Hall of Mirrors (MOCA, LA 1996) and Future Cinema (ZKM, 2002) alongside curatorial projects realised in relation to the cinema space (Kubelka Was ist Film? project, 1996-). Each of these instances is considered in relationship with the emergence of a digital future which threatens to subsume existing understandings of cinema, almost entirely.”

More info HERE

09 October 2014

EFS in Cork Film Festival 2014

Experimental Film Society, founded and curated by Dublin-based Iranian filmmaker Rouzbeh Rashidi, is a not-for-profit entity that promotes, archives and produces work by a dozen filmmakers in several different countries, filmmakers united by an uncompromising devotion to personal, experimental cinema. They share an exploratory approach to filmmaking where films emerge from the interplay of sound, image and atmosphere rather than traditional storytelling techniques. 

EFS has been crucial in nurturing a new Iranian underground cinema that is significantly different from both official Iranian cinema and the politically oppositional works that western audiences are familiar with. Introspective and nightmarish, these films consist of oblique but searingly intense visions of enclosed existences. Rashidi will present both programmes in the forthcoming Cork Film Festival 2014.


Programme 1: Stutter Films

Stutter Films is the name under which Hamid Shams Javi and Kamyar Kordestani create their bizarre and hallucinatory visions, darkly poetic personal documents that often resemble surreal horror stories.

Untitled (Hamid Shams Javi, 5’, 2011, Iran)
Turtle (Hamid Shams Javi, 9’ 2011, Iran, )
Full House (Kamyar Kordestani, 5’, 2011, Iran, subtitles)
Partizan (Kamyar Kordestani, 7’, 2012, Iran, subtitles)
Ashes to Ashes (Hamid Shams Javi, 7’, 2012, Iran)
Punishment (Kamyar Kordestani, 25’, 2013, Iran, subtitles)
The Hell With It (Hamid Shams Javi, 29’, 2013, Iran, subtitles)

Total running time: 87’

Buy Tickets HERE


Programme 2: At a Distance

The second programme looks at two Iranian filmmakers based in Europe. Artist Bahar Samadi’s visually exquisite, gem-like videos mysteriously suggest loss and memory. Rouzbeh Rashidi’s bleak evocation of exile, Hades of Limbo, was made using a unique concept that incoporates exile into its very making: he directed his actors and crew in Tehran remotely from his home in Dublin. 

101 (Bahar Samadi, 4’, 2012, France)
W.E. (Bahar Samadi, 5’, 2014, France)
The Memories of Others (Bahar Samadi, 8’, 2012, France)
On the Way (Bahar Samadi, 3’, 2013, France)
Hades of Limbo (Rouzbeh Rashidi, 82’, 2012, Iran/Ireland, subtitles)

Total running time: 102’

Buy Tickets HERE

30 September 2014

EFS at Temple Bar Gallery + Studios (II)


Monday 24th November | 6pm

Temple Bar Gallery + Studios (Studio 6 Open), 5-9 Temple Bar, Dublin 2. | Free admission, all welcome.

The second of six bi-monthly Experimental Film Society (EFS) screenings, taking place at Temple Bar Gallery + Studios under the Studio 6 Open programme, highlights the reach and stylistic diversity of EFS’ international membership. Bahar Samadi’s haunting, gem-like videos make very personal use of found footage to evoke a mysterious sense of loss and memory. Jason Marsh’s Pitpony and Esperanza Collado’s The Illuminating Gas both explore the raw materiality of celluloid but with contrasting approaches to rhythm. An emphasis on hypnotic rhythm and a willingness to tackle darkly erotic material characterizes the two collaborative pieces in the programme, Dean Kavanagh & Rouzbeh Rashidi’s Homo Sapiens Project (183) and Vicky Langan & Maximilian Le Cain’s Desk 13. And the darkness continues into Hamid Shams Javi’s surreal nightmare vision of family life in contemporary Iran, The Hell With It. 

EFS is a not-for-profit entity that promotes, archives and sometimes produces work by a dozen filmmakers operating in several different countries. Although each member has a distinctive vision, they are united by an uncompromising devotion to personal, experimental cinema. They have in common an exploratory approach to filmmaking where films emerge from the interplay of sound, image and atmosphere rather than traditional storytelling techniques. EFS was founded by Dublin-based filmmaker Rouzbeh Rashidi, who continues to curate and run the organization.

1 - Les Yeux Disparus (2012) By Bahar Samadi / France / 10mins
2 - W.E (2013) By Bahar Samadi / France / 5mins
3 - Pitpony (2014) By Jason Marsh / UK / 4mins
4 - The Illuminating Gas (2012) By Esperanza Collado / Spain / 7:30mins
5 - Homo Sapiens Project (183) (2014) By Rouzbeh Rashidi/Dean Kavanagh / Ireland / 21mins
6 - Desk 13 (2011) By Maximilian Le Cain/Vicky Langan / Ireland / 8mins
7 - The Hell With It (2014) By Hamid Shams Javi / Iran / 29mins

Total Running Time: 85mins

More info HERE

25 September 2014

مصاحبه با روزبه رشیدی و بیانیه انجمن سینمای تجربی


روزبه رشیدی فیلمسازی ایرانی و ساکن دوبلین است که امروزه او را مهمترین شخصیت عرصه ی سینمای تجربی و زیرزمینی ایرلند می‌دانند. پیش از دیدن آثار وی، علاوه بر کیفیت، صرفاً کمیت این تولیدات هم شگفت انگیز است. او با ساخت 12 فیلم بلند و 60 فیلم کوتاه در سال گذشته توانست در شیوه ی فیلمسازی انفرادی خود، فعالیت قابل توجهی داشته باشد و مهمتر از کمیت آثار وی، کیفیت چشمگیر و بالایی است که اکثراً در این فیلم‌های شخصی و چالش برانگیز به چشم می‌خورد. نگاه متفاوت و مینیمالیستی او که حال و هوای شاعرانه ای به کارهایش داده‌ به همراه فضا سازی ذهنی و درونی او در کنار عدم استفاده از شیوه های روایی، کم کم به عنوان سبکی قابل اعتنا در سینمای این روزهای جهان در حال معرفی است.

با وجود روحیه ی فردگرای رشیدی و مشغله ی زیادی که ساخت فیلم های خودش به همراه دارد،ٍ برای پرورش و ارتقای آثارفیلمسازان دیگرهم به اندازه تعهد به کارهای شخصیش فعالیت می‌کند. به همین منظور انجمن سینمای تجربی (Experimental Film Society_EFS) که توسط خود رشیدی در سال 2000 تاسیس شده، مسئولیت حفظ و ارتقای آثار فیلمسازان تجربی دیگر را نیز به عهده گرفته ‌است. هرچند این انجمن به معرفی و پخش آثار روزبه رشیدی می پردازد اما در عین حال آثار فیلمسازان تجربی ساکن دیگر نقاط مختلف دنیا را هم جمع‌آوری و معرفی می‌کند.

بعضی از اعضای EFS در سبک کاری خود به خوبی جا افتاده‌اند اما رشیدی معتقد است انجمن به جز معرفی آثار این اعضا، فیلم‌هایی را جمع‌آوری و آرشیو می کند که شاید بدون یاری این انجمن به کلی از بین می‌رفتند. از فعالیت‌های مهم دیگر EFS تشویق و حمایت از فیلمسازان مستعدی است که بعد از اولین تلاش برای ساخت اثر خود بدلیل مشکلات فراوان ممکن است ناامید دست از کار بکشند.

EFS یک انجمن بین‌المللی است اما فعالیت‌اش را در ایران آغاز کرده و اعضای آن توسط روزبه رشیدی و بر مبنای درک زیبایی شناختی و هنریشان انتخاب شده‌اند اما با همه ی این اوصاف می‌تواند نمودی از سینمای تجربی ایران نیز باشد؛ سینمایی که شاید بدون وجود این انجمن به چشم جامعه جهانی نیاید. بسیاری از فیلم های این افراد و اعضای دیگر انجمن در آرشیو بزرگ EFS به صورت آنلاین قابل دسترسی است و اطلاعات تکمیلی درباره اعضای سابق و کنونی این انجمن هم در وب سایت رسمی EFS موجود است:

experimentalfilmsociety.com
facebook.com/experimentalfilmsociety

***


متن زیر بخشی از گفته های روزبه رشیدی در مصاحبه با ماکسیمیلان له کین از مجله ی اینترنی Experimental Conversations  درباره ی تاریخ و اهداف انجمن سینمای تجربی است.


وقتی در ژانویه 2000، فیلمسازی را در تهران آغاز کردم، سه شاخه ی اصلی از فیلمسازی برای انتخاب و ادامه ی فعالیتم وجود داشت. اولی سینمای مین استریم، با تمرکز ویژه بر قصه‌گویی چه در حوزه ی مستند و چه در حوزه ی داستانی بود که در این زمینه مشکل عمده ای برای دریافت پروانه ی ساخت و گرفتن مجوز دولت وجود داشت. هرچند که من در جایگاه تماشاگر سینما، گاهی از سینمای داستانی لذت می برم اما هیچوقت علاقه‌ای به ساخت اینگونه آثار نداشتم.

شاخه ی دوم شکلی از سینمای زیرزمینی بود که ایده و موضوع پررنگتری داشت و از شیوه های فیلمسازی با بودجه‌های پایین بهره می برد. اما این حوزه هم به جز استفاده از منابع مالی بسیار اندک، تفاوت چندانی با دسته اول نداشت. تکنیک‌ و راه و روش‌های خلاقانه این عده از فیلمسازان برای کاهش هزینه، بخصوص در بخش تقلیل تعداد عوامل ساخت یک اثر برایم جالب بود اما نهایتا تمام قصه به همین جا ختم می‌شد.

سومی ویدئو آرت بود که آثار این دسته به صراحت ایدئولوژیک بودند و اهدافی سیاسی، اجتماعی یا مذهبی را دنبال می‌کردند. من بعضی از ویدئو آرت ها را که حال و هوایی شخصی و شاعرانه داشتند ترجیح می‌دادم اما نهایتا این تولیدات در زمینه هنرهای بصری بودند  و علاقه من به اصل سینما بود و احساس کردم که به هیچ کدام از این شاخه‌ها تعلق ندارم. من تحت تاثیر فیلمسازانی مثل درن، مکاس، براکیج، گدار، تارکوفسکی، اوزو، کامران شیردل، پرویز کیمیاوی، سهراب شهید ثالث و عباس کیارستمی می‌خواستم محصولی بسیار تجربی، درون خود سینما بسازم.

گام اول برای من بوجود آوردن شیوه ای سیستماتیک برای ساخت و نمایش اینگونه آثار بود. با همین هدف به همراه دوست فیلمبردارم محمد نیک‌دل، انجمن سینمای تجربی را در سال 2000 تاسیس کردم. تا سال 2004 در ایران به فیلمسازی مشغول بودم و بعد به ایرلند آمدم و فعالیت این انجمن را ادامه دادم. از فیلمسازان مختلفی برای عضویت در EFS دعوت کردم. به جمع‌آوری و انتخاب فیلم‌ها و بررسی دقیق آنها و همچنین قرار دادن بهترین این آثار در آرشیو آنلاین EFS پرداختم و از همه مهم‌تر هر زمانی که ممکن بود برای نمایش این فیلم‌ها در فستیوال‌ها، سینماها و گالری‌ها تلاش کردم. هدف اصلی و ویژه ی انجمن فیلمسازان تجربی را می توان نمایش فیلم‌های تجربی مهجور نامید تا در معرض دید مخاطبانشان قرار گیرند.

برای فیلم‌های انجمن هیچ قانون و قاعده ی سختگیرانه ای وجود ندارد اما بیشتر آثار ویژگی‌هایی خاص و مشترک دارند. یکی از این ویژگی‌ها عدم وجود فیلمنامه یا هر شکلی از متن است. فیلم‌هایی که به جای کلمات با تصاویر بیان می‌شوند، شاخ و برگ پیدا کرده و به کیفیت مختص خودشان دست می یابند. بعد از مدتی، فیلمسازان این انجمن به شیوه ای بداهه و همراه با کشف و شهود در ساخت اثر خود‌ می‌رسند. این فیلمسازان تا آخرین روز تدوین هم دقیقا نمی‌دانند که چه فیلمی ساخته‌اند و بیشتر از آنکه بر فیلمشان کنترل داشته باشند فیلم بر آنها کنترل دارد.

فیلم‌های EFS با آزادی کامل برای ایجاد خلاقیت و استفاده کامل از ذوق و قریحه ی فیلمساز تولید می شود و تامین بودجه بسیاری از آنها با خود فیلمساز است. تجهیزاتی که برای این‌ فیلم‌ها بکار می رود معمولا تجهیزات ابتدایی و ارزان قیمت مثل وب‌کم، دوربین تلفن همراه، Mini DV، سوپرهشت، و به تازگی DSLR است. فیلمبرداری بیشتر صحنه‌ها با نور طبیعی انجام می‌شود و وجود نورپردازی حرفه ای در این فیلم ها نادر است. بیشتر عوامل فیلم و بازیگران آن غیرحرفه‌ای هستند و بسته به شرایط ساخت و ایده ی فیلم هر کسی می‌تواند در ساخت این فیلم‌ها مشارکت کند. پلات اصلی این فیلم‌ها به شدت انتزاعی است و با کمترین دیالوگ ممکن یا بدون دیالوگ طرح ریزی می شوند. البته استثنائاتی هم مثل بعضی از کارهای شخصی من در این زمینه وجود دارد. فیلم‌های Bipedality 2010  و Closure of Catharsis 2011 پر از مونولوگ و دیالوگ هستند.


فیلم‌های EFS تماماً شخصی و به نوعی ناتمام‌اند. این فیلم‌ها مخاطبشان را با روایتی مستقیم و مشخص مواجه نمی کنند و به آنها دیکته نمی کنند که که هر لحظه از فیلم دقیقاً چه حسی باید داشته باشند. رابطه ی این فیلم‌ها با بینندگانشان شاید شبیه به نوعی موسیقی باشد که فقط نتهای درام و بیس به گوش شنونده می‌رسند و ساختن ملودی‌ را به بیننده واگذار می کنند. این آثار به اندازه‌ای باز هستند که تماشاگر در حین تماشای آنها به جای فاصله گرفتن از خود، دقیقاً به خودش رجوع می کند. این آثار در مورد تصاویر و گسترش این تصاویرند. هر جای فیلم  که موسیقی و صدا شنیده شود بیانگر تعامل و تاثیر متقابل تصویر و صدا است.

سینما پیوسته در اشکال مختلف‌ تجربه می‌شود و باید گفت که هدف این فیلم‌ها لزوماً گسترش مرزهای سینما نیست چرا که این مرزها توسط فیلمسازان ساختارگرایی مثل پل شاریتس یا با کارهای فیلیپ گرل به حد نهایت خود رسیده‌اند و نمی‌توان کاری فراتر از آنها انجام داد اما اگر تجربیات یک فیلمساز با شخصیت و درک او مطابقت داشته باشد، امکانات این مدیوم متداوماً تازه و نو می شوند.

همچنین EFS پذیرای فرصت‌هایی است که از طریق امکانات دیجیتال در اختیار سینما و فیلم‌سازی قرار می گیرد و در این زمینه،  تاثیرات کامپیوتر، اینترنت و تجهیزات دیجیتالی سینما را پیگیری می‌کند. امروزه حتی فیلم‌هایی که از سلولوئید ساخته می‌شوند نهایتاً به فیلم‌های ویدئویی یا دیجیتال تبدیل می‌شوند. یکی از کارهای ما بهره‌برداری حداکثری از پتانسیل های خلاقانه ی این امکانات است.

با تمام این حرف‌ها باید گفت فیلم‌های ساخته شده توسط فیلمسازان انجمن سینمای تجربی تنوع  بسیاری دارند. EFS در حال حاضر اعضایی در ایران، ایرلند، سوئیس، آمریکا، استرالیا، اسپانیا، فرانسه و بریتانیا دارد که بر اساس پیشینه و فرهنگ خاص کشور خود رشد کرده اند اما شیوه ی کاری و آثار این فیلم‌سازان به قدری نکات مشترک دارد که حتی هنگام برنامه‌ریزی و نمایش فیلم‌ها هم  ناخودآگاه نوعی هارمونی و سازگاری بین آنها بوجود می آید.

درباره برنامه‌ریزی برای نمایش فیلم‌ها باید گفت که آنچه باعث جلای فعالیت EFS شد ناامیدی از شکل برنامه‌ریزی و نمایش فیلم‌های کوتاه در فستیوال‌های مختلف در سراسر دنیا بود. فیلم‌ کوتاه عموماً با برنامه‌ریزی‌های بسیار ضعیف در مدت زمانی طولانی و بدون هیچ گونه تفکری در مورد نحوه ی گزینش در فستیوال‌ها نمایش داده می‌شود. قرار گرفتن آثار به این شیوه کنار هم بیشتر شبیه به یک تصادم است تا اینکه فیلم ها مکمل هم و یا حتی طنینی از یکدیگر باشند. همچنین به ندرت فرصتی برای فیلمسازان آثار کوتاه به وجود می‌آید تا فیلمشان را معرفی کنند و مخاطب خود را جذب کنند. به نظر می رسد که فقط پذیرفته شدن فیلم توسط فستیوال ها اهمیت دارد و نه تجربه ی نمایش فیلم برای خود فیلمساز و یا مخاطبان آن. EFS با اجتناب از بی‌برنامگی رایج در ساز و کار فستیوال‌ها، خود مسئولیت برنامه‌ریزی و نمایش فیلم‌ها را در سینماها و گالری‌های کوچک به عهده گرفته‌است. این جلسات نمایش فضایی صمیمی و دوستانه دارد که فیلمسازان در صورت حضور می‌توانند در مورد اثر خود با مخاطب به گفت و گو بنشینند. واکنش مخاطبان  بسیار شگفت‌انگیز است. برخی از آنها هیچ وقت فیلم تجربی ندیده اند و به ندرت در اولین برخورد، عاشق این فیلم‌ها می‌شوند اما بذری در ذهن آنها کاشته می شود که رشد آن به شناخت و درک واقعی این نوع آثار می انجامد.

آینده EFS نامعلوم است اما شخصاً علاقه  دارم تا با گسترش این انجمن آن را به یک کمپانی تولید و پخش فیلم‌های اعضا تبدیل کنم. من طرفدار پر و پاقرص کمپانی های توزیع فیلم مثل  Anthology Film Archives، LightCone، Canyon Cinema و LUX Moving Image  هستم. ایده آل ترین حالت دستیابی به سیستمی مشابه است اما در حال حاضر EFS در جهت حمایت از فیلمسازانی که زمینه مناسب برای نمایش و معرفی کارهایشان ندارند، فعالیت می‌کند.

دسامبر 2011

Originally Published HERE




بیانیه انجمن سینمای تجربی


ژان کوکتو سینما را "مرگ در حین کار" می دانست و این جنبه‌ از مدیوم سینما، دغدغه ی اصلی من است. امروزه فیلم‌سازی به خودی خود تبدیل به مراسمی آئینی شده است؛ از به دام انداختن تصاویرتا چیدمان دوباره ی آنها به منظور رها سازی این نیرو و تغییرشکل آن از ماده به نور.

من فیلم‌سازی را در آغاز هزاره سوم، در سال 2000 شروع کردم و تنها چیزی که از همان روز اول به دنبالش بودم پاسخی برای سوال معروف "سینما چیست؟" درعصر حاضر بود. این سوال نیروی محرکه‌ای بود که مرا پیاپی به تحقیق و تجربه در کارگاه فیلم‌سازی‌ام تشویق می‌کرد.

هر فیلمی که ساخته می‌شود چیزی به جز نورها و سایه‌هایی از اثری مشابه آن در گذشته نیست. هیچ فیلم اصیلی به جز اولین فیلم های ساخته شده توسط پیشگامان سینما وجود ندارد.

در فیلم‌های بلند و فیلم‌های کوتاه دنباله داری که ساختم (Homo Sapiens Project) به دنبال تجربه ای در زمینه ی ساختارشکنی و از هم پاشیدن الگوهای ژانری در سینما بودم. تقلیل الگوهای ژانر منجر به دستیابی به نقطه ی صفر درام از طریق حذف سیتماتیک ساختار روایی شد که نتیجه ی آن ساخت مجموعه‌ای از فیلم‌های تجربی است که حال و هوا، فضا، ریتم‌ بصری، طبیعت، موضوعیت تصویر و همچنین نگاه منجر به ساخت اثر را در مرکز توجه خود قرار می دهند. به این موارد کمرنگ شدن مرزهای بین سینمای مستند و داستانی و همینطور نقش معماری  و چشم انداز ها  به عنوان نسخ خطی باقی مانده از تاریخی نهان را می توان اضافه کرد.


تمام این عناصر در تضاد بین شرایط پرابهام لحظه ی فیلمبرداری و آنچه که در پایان و بپس از تدوین به وجود می‌آید آشکار شده‌اند. همانطور که دونال فورمن می‌گوید: "هر تصویر یک رویداد مستقل است" و "سینما دیالوگی بین خواسته و حقیقت است". با این نگاه، تدوین، کالبدشکافی مجموعه رویدادهای ثبت شده ای سرشار از زندگی، رنگ و حرکت است که آرام و بی‌حرکت در اتاق تشریح خوابیده‌اند. تصاویر، کاوش موشکافی و بررسی می شوند تا دوباره نور، شکل و ریتمی باشند که مثل اشباح به میان زندگان بازگردند.

این تفکرکه فیلم را به عنوان مدیومی بی جان می شناسد ریشه درزمان گذشته و مرده ی تصویر گرفته شده دارد که به واسطه ی نمایش و تدوین دوباره جان می گیرد. گدار و گورین گفته‌اند که مرزبندی میان سینمای مستند و داستانی اشتباه است اما من ایده ی دونال فورمن را می‌پذیرم که می‌گوید: "مرزبندی بین سینمای مستند و داستانی بی‌معنی است." "هر تصویر به محض فیلمبرداری، تبدیل به یک داستان می‌شود و محل قرار دادن دوربین وجه تمایز بین داستان من و داستان شماست" و "دوربین همواره بخشی از صحنه است." رائول رویز می‌گوید: "در سینمای داستانی ـ تمام سبک‌های سینمایی تا اندازه ای شکل روایی دارند ـ نوع تصاویر تولید شده‌ روایت را بوجود می آورند و نه بلعکس.»

فرم مهم‌ترین و حیاتی‌ترین بخش هنر هفتم است. اگر به فرمی یگانه دست پیدا کنید، روایت، داستان یا نمایش می‌تواند به واسطه ی آن شکل بگیرد. حتی به سادگی می‌توان خود فرم را دارا بود که تنها در جایگاه خود به طرز شگفت انگیزی رسا و گویا است. همانطور که فورمن می‌گوید: "باش، تصویر نکن"

ژان ماری اشتراوب و دانیل هویلت می گویند : "سینما ابزار توضیح و توصیف نیست. برای ساختن تصاویر باید در میانشان زندگی کنید.  فیلمسازان بیشماری هستند که در فیلمهایشان هزاران درخت را به تصویر کشیده اند اما مخاطب حتی یک تک درخت بلوط را هم در پایان به خاطر نمی‌آورد. تصویر باید روی پای خودش بایستد وچیزی مطلق یا قراردادی نیست. یک تصویر شرح نمی دهد، بلکه به جای توضیح و تفسیر، وجود مستقل خود را داراست."


باور عمومی، ساخت فیلم بدون فیلمنامه را محال می‌داند وبه آن جایگاهی ایمن به عنوان سنگ بنای فیلم‌سازی داده است. فیلم‌نامه همچون منبع اطلاعاتی هر آنچه دیده و شنیده خواهد شد تلقی می شود اما هیچ چیز در آن دیده و شنیده نمی شود. هر چند فیلمنامه نویسی به خودی خود یک هنر است اما ارتباط بسیار ضعیفی با فیلمسازی دارد.

یک سیناپس پرابهام و رازآلود برای ساختن یک فیلم بلند کافی است و می‌توان با حفظ ابهام و افزودن جزئیات ظریف، ذهن را به هیجان آورد و وادار به فعالیت کرد. یکی از مثال‌های گویا در این زمینه، سیناپس فیلم لعن اثر بلا تار است; رابطه ی بین یک مرد آسمان‌جل بی پول و خواننده ی زن یک کلوپ شبانه با پیشنهاد همکاری مرد به شوهر زن برای همکاری در قاچاق دچار تلاطم می شود. گدار اخیرا در مصاحبه‌ای گفته است: "ایده‌ها رفته رفته شکل می‌گیرند و نیازی به فیلمنامه نیست. ابتدا تصورم این بود که داشتن فیلمنامه ضروری است[…] اما بعد فهمیدم که فیلمنامه نه بعد از پایان فیلمبرداری که بعد از پایان تدوین به وجود می‌آید."

جدای از تماشای فیلم‌های مربوط به تاریخ سینما، لذت بخش ترین قسمت سینما، هنر فیلمسازی است. یعنی فیلمبرداری و جمع‌آوری متریال و تدوین و مونتاژ آنها که دو مرحله ی تکنیکی و سنگین می باشند. نوستالژی و خسران، درست بعد از این مراحل به سراغ فیلمساز می‌آیند. هر فیلم بعد از پایان فیلمبرداری مرده‌ای تمام و کمال است که همچون زنده ها رفتار می‌کند و به همین دلیل از نظر من سینما تماماً درباره ی ارواح و سایه‌ها است. باید خوش‌شانس باشید که همکارانی فوق العاده پیدا کنید تا مجبور نشوید حین دوران فعالیت خود به تنهایی با این احساس دست و پنجه نرم کنید. برای من باقی چیزها، اتلاف وقت است!

ما در EFS از تمامی ابزارها و دوربین‌ها چه سلولوئید و چه ویدئویی به شکلی یکسان و برابر استفاده می‌کنیم و دلبستگی خاصی به هیچ‌ کدام نداریم. فیلمساز قرن 21 از هر وسیله ی ضبط تصویر متحرک برای ساخت اثرش استفاده می‌کند و درست همانطور که اورسون ولز می‌گوید "هیچ فیلمی خوب از آب درنمی‌آید مگر اینکه دوربینش مثل چشم ذهن یک شاعر باشد." سینما صددرصد وابسته به تکنولوژی زمان خود است و روش ساخت و نمایش فیلم تماما به این تکنولوژی مرتبط است. تکنولوژی زمان ما، تکنولوژی دیجیتال است و بسیاری از فیلمسازان باید برای شرح و بیان خود و پیشرفت سینما این تکنولوژی را با آغوش باز بپذیرند. سینما به همان اندازه که از گذشته می گوید، درباره آینده هم هست.

فیلم‌های EFS در مورد تصاویر و گسترش آنها هستند. موسیقی و صدا هر کجا که وارد فیلم ها می‌شوند بیانگر تعامل و تاثیر متقابل تصویر و صدا است. سینما پیوسته در اشکال مختلف‌ تجربه می‌شود. هدف فیلم‌های EFS لزوماً گسترش مرزهای سینما نیست چرا که این مرزها توسط فیلمسازان ساختارگرایی مثل پل شاریتس یا با کارهای فیلیپ گرل به حد نهایت خود رسیده‌اند و نمی‌توان کاری فراتر از آنها انجام داد. اما اگر تجربیات یک فیلمساز با شخصیت و درک او مطابق باشد، امکانات این مدیوم متداوماً تازه و نو می شوند.

"در زمانه ای زندگی می کنیم که تمام فیلم‌هایی که باید، ساخته شده‌اند اما انرژی آنها برای بقا ایستادگی می کند و ایماژهایشان در حرکت اند؛ حرکتی در دل تاریکی که بدن و شب را مدام با تغییرات فراوان ضرباهنگشان به هم پیوند می‌زند."
ماکسیمیلیان له کین (Maximilian Le Cain)

Originally Published HERE


روزبه رشیدی-می 2014
با تشکر ویژه از دین کاوانا و ماکسیمیلیان له کین

16 September 2014

EFS @ "Sessões do Udigrudi" São Paulo


A programme of Experimental Film Society will be screening as part of "Sessões do Udigrudi" at Image and Sound Laboratory of State University of Campinas, São Paulo Brazil on Tuesday 7th October 2014 at 19:00 pm.

1_Last Phase (2014) By Atoosa Pour Hosseini / Ireland / 2mins (Guest Artist)
2_Kish (2014) By Jann Clavadetscher / Switzerland / 8mins 
3_W.E (2013) By Bahar Samadi / France / 5mins
4_On The Way (2013) By Bahar Samadi / France / 3mins 
5_The Hell With It (2014) By Hamid Shams Javi / Iran / 29mins 
6_Pitpony (2014) By Jason Marsh / UK / 4mins 
7_The Last of Deductive Frames (scene 9) (2013) By Dean Kavanagh / Ireland / 10mins
8_Homo Sapiens Project (126) (2013) By Rouzbeh Rashidi / Ireland / 10mins  
9_Night Regulation (2014) By Maximilian Le cain / Ireland-USA / 25mins 
10_The Illuminating Gas (2012) By Esperanza Collado / Spain / 7:30mins 
11_Funnel Web Family (2013) By Michael Higgins / Ireland / 14mins

Total running time: 117 Minutes

Experimental Film Society is an independent, not-for-profit entity specializing in avant-garde, independent and no/low budget filmmaking. It was founded in 2000 in Tehran, Iran by Rouzbeh Rashidi and has been based in Dublin, Ireland since 2004. It unites works by a dozen filmmakers scattered across the globe, whose films are distinguished by an uncompromising devotion to personal, experimental cinema. They have in common an exploratory approach to filmmaking where films emerge from the interplay of sound, image and atmosphere rather than traditional storytelling techniques. Although an international organization, Experimental Film Society is notably at the centre of a new wave of Irish experimental filmmaking and crucial in fostering a radical emerging Iranian underground cinema. This programme encapsulates the range and vision of its members’ work.

Programmed by Rouzbeh Rashidi

10 September 2014

04 September 2014

EFS at Temple Bar Gallery + Studios (1)


Experimental Film Society (EFS) is a not-for-profit entity that promotes, archives and sometimes produces work by a dozen filmmakers operating in several different countries. Although each member has a distinctive vision, they are united by an uncompromising devotion to personal, experimental cinema. They have in common an exploratory approach to filmmaking where films emerge from the interplay of sound, image and atmosphere rather than traditional storytelling techniques. EFS was founded by Dublin-based filmmaker Rouzbeh Rashidi, who continues to curate and run the organization.

Although international in scope, EFS is notably at the centre of a new energy in Irish experimental filmmaking and crucial in fostering a radical Iranian underground cinema. A series of six bi-monthly screenings at Temple Bar Gallery + Studios will present not only the work of EFS members, but will juxtapose it with films by other contemporary experimental filmmakers, exploring and identifying a strong and vital tendency in alternative cinema today: personal, formalistic, anti-narrative, often uncanny. Work that pushes the boundaries of film and video in conveying unique and unsettling worldviews that can only be expressed through extreme cinematic forms. 

The first programme will showcase the five EFS members who are from or are currently based in Ireland: Rouzbeh Rashidi, Maximilian Le Cain, Dean Kavanagh, Michael Higgins and Jann Clavadetscher. The films selected will identify the specific qualities of each filmmaker, as well as indicating where they overlap and the fruitful history of collaboration that they share.

Monday 22nd September 2014 6PM at Temple Bar Gallery + Studios (Studio 6 Open), 5-9 Temple Bar, Dublin 2. 

1_Kish (8mins) By Jann Clavadetscher
2_Light From An Old Town (17mins) By Dean Kavanagh
3_Funnel Web Family (14mins) By Michael Higgins
4_H7HSP160 Regression (40mins) By Maximilian Le Cain & Rouzbeh Rashidi

Total Running Time: 80 Minutes

More info:

03 September 2014

Solus/EFS Screening @ Filmbase, Dublin


An Evening of Experimental Film With Solus Film Collective & Experimental Film Society 


Tuesday September 9th, 6.30 pm, €7,

Filmbase, Curved St., Temple Bar, Dublin 


Solus presents Masha Godovannaya's 'Objects In Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear

Experimental Film Society presents ‘Forbidden Symmetries’ & ‘Tangled And Far’ 

Solus is an independent film collective. It has the dual aim of showing Irish short and avant-garde films abroad and international short and avant-garde films in Ireland. Experimental Film Society is a not-for-profit entity that promotes, archives and produces work by a dozen experimental filmmakers operating in several different countries. 

The screening of Objects In Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear is the third installment of the Solus 2014 tour, covering USA, Russia and Ireland. For information on the film, please visit: soluscollective.com

The Experimental Film Society section of the programme consists of: 

Tangled And Far (Vicky Langan/Maximilian Le Cain, 2013, 12 mins) 
This video is the most recent in the ongoing collaboration between Vicky Langan and Maximilian Le Cain. Drawing on footage of Langan’s performances over the past two years, as well as scenes specifically shot for this video, it foregrounds the overlap between intimate domestic detail and its reflection in Langan’s performance work. The private and public projections of her presence and actions collapse into each other in this phantasmagoric continuum of alternate selves and self-images to form a fractured dream portrait. 

Forbidden Symmetries (Dean Kavanagh/Maximilian Le Cain/Rouzbeh Rashidi, 2014, 97 mins) 
This collaborative feature is an ostensibly science fictional trip, arranged in three half-hour ‘phases’, one by each director. They are three witnesses to the invasion giving three accounts. Are they observing the same thing? Were there any warning signs? And, after all they’ve seen and heard, are they even competent to offer a reliable report? The purpose of this film is to demonstrate that an effort to construct functions known not to exist may on occasion produce interesting frauds. (Please note: this film contains intense strobing effects.)

  • Rouzbeh Rashdi, Dean Kavanagh, Vicky Langan and Maximilian Le Cain will be present to introduce their films.

14 August 2014

What is the Irish for ‘avant-garde’? An examination of the avant-garde idea in Irish cinema


Sam Fitzpatrick interviews filmmakers Dean Kavanagh, Rouzbeh Rashidi and Maximilian Le Cain for his thesis “What is the Irish for ‘avant-garde’? An examination of the avant-garde idea in Irish cinema” for the course “MSc in Digital Feature Film Production” run by Filmbase Dublin, in association with Staffordshire University.



Sam Fitzpatrick:     Ireland obviously has historically not possessed much in the way of an experimental film scene. Even the recent EFS programme in the IFI, “Absences and (Im)possibilities”, reinforces that fact; in both its programme notes and its title. But it seems that this may be changing -- yourselves, the others in the Experimental Film Society and various other practitioners have been incredibly prolific, it seems to me, over the last few years. Do you see this activity as representative of an experimental scene or emerging movement as such?

Rouzbeh Rashidi:       Personally I would prefer to stay away from classifications such as ‘movement’ and ‘new wave’. I think that they are very dangerous and have contributed to many of the maladies in today’s cinema. If you are engaged with the history of film and study it carefully and passionately you realise that all of the established ‘movements’ and ‘new waves’ occurred organically with time as the presiding judge.

I was involved in a ‘movement’ called “Remodernist film” for almost two years. It has a striking, interesting and genuine manifesto, which I still admire, but unfortunately the focus and energy of the contributing members was spent on everything but the actual craft of filmmaking. It simply became a cheap act of protection and promotion for the ‘movement’ itself rather than making films. Usually when a considerable amount of films have been completed, screened, reviewed and discussed- with text from film critics and theoreticians in circulation, then finally as time passes, you will know if there was a ‘movement’ or ‘new wave’. But when you remove all of these factors, and above all, remove time from the equation and reverse the actual process, the result is absolutely horrific.

All I know is that with EFS the energy is focused on the PRODUCTION of cinema and that is all we care about. With EFS we are trying to create a culture that we simply don’t have here; therefore we are building it from scratch with our films. Even if our films are part of a ‘movement’ or ‘new wave’ we really are unaware and simply don’t think about it. Each of us developed a unique and personal cinematic language and it is only through this that we constantly express ourselves. Also it is worth mentioning that we care very deeply for and engage with the history of cinema and are completely aware of the fact that the limits of cinema have already been fully reached, right to the very edges. There is nothing new in film history. The only way that you can genuinely contribute is to dig into your personal experiences and make cinema about them. By no means does this mean a translation of events as concept/content but rather a formalistic approach that embraces themes too.

Dean Kavanagh: I always worry about the term ‘movement’ as it is thrown around so much, and in particular, over the last year or two in Ireland regarding, what I would call, a certain ‘mainstream independent cinema’. Even the term ‘independent’ is finished with.

People really want to see an ‘Irish new wave’ but everyone knows it is not something that the filmmakers can decide. That is for the critics to determine in 20 years time, most likely when it is over, if it ever existed at all. But I think it is undeniable that something special is happening within cinema here and it has EFS at the absolute core.

Experimental Film Society has been very active in Ireland and internationally. To this date, with the combined works of the filmmakers, it has produced around 52 feature films, over 400 short films and has also fostered expanded cinema and audio-visual performance events and film screening. EFS members have even released albums of drone/ambient music online, like an addendum to the film work. All of this has happened within the period of 10 years and between 9 or 10 people internationally, 4 of whom living in Ireland. There is certainly a ‘scene’ emerging here thanks to EFS.

Maximilian Le Cain:  There’s a strong, organic affinity and understanding between the four EFS members based in Ireland, the four featured in the Absences and (Im)Possibilities programme: Rouzbeh Rashidi, Dean Kavanagh, Michael Higgins and myself. It could be argued that we’ve created a sort of ‘scene’, however small and marginal. Beyond that, there are two or three Irish filmmakers that I am aware of as coming from a somewhat similar place. But this question of experimental film production in Ireland also comes down to how one defines ‘experimental film’- there are, of course, so many different approaches. It’s a broad and sometimes contested territory. We have our own brand of ‘experimental film’ but it’s certainly not the only one, nor should it be. There is much experimental moving image work happening in Irish artists’ film and video that has nothing in common with what we’re up to. So I’d say there is an upsurge in experimental work happening in Ireland but this is the product of multiple scenes. And as to the question of EFS being a movement (which has been mooted by some people), only time can answer that one. We’re just concerned with doing our work.


SF:  You've written on the difficulties of getting experimental feature-length work exhibited -- in line with that, I wonder what your thoughts are on the space for experimental cinema in Ireland generally? 

RR:  In this age of digital revolution, the entire process of film distribution has been reversed and torn upside down. By this I simply mean that in the past it was extremely difficult to make a feature length film due to very high production costs. But if you were able to pass that stage it was reasonably feasible to get your film shown, even though it may be a limited run at film festivals or public cinemas. Whereas now it is far easier to make a film but near impossible to get it exposed to an audience due to the sheer volume of products being made. It is this saturation that has completely killed the very term ‘indie’ or ‘independent’ cinema, and that is why I prefer to use the term ‘underground’ in relation to the works of EFS, because this term still carries a trace of radical agenda to some small degree.

I like film festivals very much and over the years I have seen a great deal of fantastic films at them and I have had the opportunity to meet like-minded people who I am still in contact with (film critics, cinephiles, curators). However, Ireland’s major film festivals (Galway Film Fleadh, Cork Film Festival and Jameson Dublin International Film Festival) have always been extremely unsupportive of this kind of cinema and consistently reject it for reasons unknown. I have been living in Ireland for the past 10 years, during that time I have been working constantly and I have explored every avenue to find support for our films, for example, this is the very first time that two programmes of EFS will be shown in the main section of Cork Film Festival. Other than this, no other film festivals in Ireland have ever supported us.


SF:  Similarly, the history of experimental film in Ireland is largely a bare one -- with the one major exception usually mentioned being the First Wave filmmakers of the 1970s. Do you see a link between that movement and the experimental scene today -- or, to your eyes, are the influences on Irish experimental film largely international? (Or are they drawn from other Irish sources entirely!)

MLC: Again, I can only speak for myself and, perhaps, some close friends. The influences are international and scattered all across cinema history. I don’t think I’ve been consciously influenced by any Irish filmmaker of the past. Inspired, yes. For instance, Vivienne Dick is someone I admire greatly. Another Irish film that stays with me is “The Dawn” (1936), a one-off feature made by a group of non-professionals in Kerry. It’s a miraculous piece of work and for me is the most luminous indication of what a classical Irish cinema might have been, a legacy we don’t have and which I regret.

SF:  Dean, Donal Foreman has compared your work to that of the Irish First Wave film-makers -- does this comparison hold true to your mind, or do you see them as an influence?

DK:  For me there is no direct influence from these filmmakers. Perhaps all we have in common is the country of origin. My influences came entirely from abroad, discovering the cinema from Asia, Eastern Europe, Central Europe, USA and the Middle East. I’ve never felt too close to Ireland growing up, I always felt like I was from somewhere else, and cinema gave me a history that I could participate in and it could provide a place for me to reside that is neither here nor there.

SF:  Do you see a political element as important to your work? As part of my research, I've been looking at links between 'Third Cinema' practitioners and that of the Irish First Wave film-makers -- is the idea of a cinema in direct opposition to mainstream cinema resonant with you or would you see yourself as having no connection to the cinema-as-industry model at all?

RR:  I can only speak for myself, and I feel that everything you do in your life is very political. I really don’t approve of playing the role of opposition/resistance and making political films in this way. You may say that I make films politically but I never make a political film consciously. Furthermore, I have no problem with the film industry (mainstream or current Hollywood). I do not see them as an enemy, a threat, something to attack, but rather a completely different entity and universe. They are doing exactly what they are programmed to do, to make entertainment and sell it to the mass audience. I have no relation to this at all as I come from a totally different background and system of filmmaking, which I formed and forged through the years as an individual. I never wanted to be part of the film industry and make films within it, even though I dearly wish I could be someone like Erich von Stroheim; to make films within the system and subvert it and even destroy it from the inside out, but I simply do not have the ability to so it, so I make films in a different manner.

You see- I really couldn’t care less about stories, concepts, notions, themes, messages or any other system of thought in this manner. Everyone has something to say that is so very general and its value diminishes once it is put through this system, so we should just put it aside. Furthermore, I am deeply interested in the craft of cinema and ‘how’ you want to express these things. I am interested in techniques, skills, expertise, engineering, science, and the laboratory of cinematic experimentation; like some kind of scientist or surgeon. I am interested in what unique ways the techniques we have offer the world something through cinema, in order to communicate with the audience. I prefer to be in this cold, mechanistic and apparatus-oriented world when I engage with cinema, similar to a 19th century inventor like Thomas Alva Edison & William K.L. Dickson, The Lumière Brothers, Edwin S. Porter or Georges Méliès. I prefer to approach cinema in this way.

DK:  I try to avoid the ‘political’ elements but I am sure they are there; it is impossible to eradicate them entirely. I work within my own personal politic; a film as an extension of myself or as something I could never be. Furthermore, I have worked in the industry on occasion as a freelance editor, cinematographer/lighting cameraman/ camera assistant and AD, I find the industry very interesting. It’s a good place to hone your skills. But as for my films, they have no connection to the industry whatsoever, except that I shoot with Canon, Sony or edit with Final Cut or Avid, or use Cooke, Canon or Zeiss lenses, Arri lamps etc.

My films are in opposition to mainstream though it is not a political strategy or a direct vengeance of any kind. I see cinema as a communication to another entity through artificial documentation. With this you can break down the signal, cross signals and remove any solid message entirely, leaving the recipient with a communiqué similar to noise on a transistor radio. In my mind this is very beautiful, there are different choices to make and these choices allow intimacy; whether you touch someone on the hand or on the face (and in what context). The industry mode removes these choices, serves you a definite context, leaving you with a telegram. So in many ways my films are in opposition just by their very existence.

The very core of the cinema-as-industry model is the polar opposite to my own views on cinema and of my films. Monetary value of an‘art object’ and the demands of the consumer society, as you know have the ultimate impact on cinema as an industry. However, through my mode of production my friends make up the majority of my audience, and perhaps then it is a shame I don’t have more friends. I make films because I feel and uncontrollable need to do so. I have felt this need from as far back as I can remember. There are no controls only the limit of technology; I have no producer over my shoulder handing me money or taking it away and there is nobody telling me what I can or cannot do.

The only thing my films have in common with the produce of the ‘industry’ is that they are all part of the whole history of cinema and filmmaking. So in that sense these commodities are like the distant cousins I don’t’ necessarily have to like or talk with; we all come from the same beginnings but we have made our own paths to the present and these diverged long ago.

SF:  Is there any aspect of modern Irish cinema to which you feel an affinity to, in terms of it evidencing some of the same concerns as your work? Mark O'Connor, on the release of his film Stalker in 2012, released a manifesto detailing his vision for the future of Irish film in which he called for a more personal cinema driven by a more singular vision -- is this, to your mind, entirely distinct from your practices or are there similarities?


MLC: I don’t see any real affinity between us and the filmmakers discussed in that piece. True, the call for a more personal cinema is laudable. But I think we’re coming from a completely different place: a different sensibility, a different context, a different set of influences and concerns, and a different relationship with the audience. We have no real connection with the Irish film industry, not even an adversarial one. It’s a different universe that we inhabit- or, I’d almost say, that we’ve created to inhabit.

RR:  We absolutely have no connection or affinity of any kind with this, whatsoever.

SF:  I'd also love to hear your thoughts on [Mark O’Connor’s] claim that restrictions such as the 180-degree rule in filmmaking no longer apply, due to the increasing sophistication of audiences -- is there a freedom to modern experimental cinema which wasn't accessible by earlier practitioners simply due to the media-literacy of their audience, or is this not something relevant to your work?

MLC: Well, experimental film has always been about pushing the boundaries of cinematic perception for the audience. But I must say I’m somewhat surprised by his comments about ‘new techniques’ in this paragraph. These techniques were innovations in the ‘60s. Cinema has completely absorbed them and now it depends entirely on how they’re used. They can still be put to challenging and exciting use but, when used sloppily, they’ve also become clichés of modern film. Rouzbeh Rashidi spoke for us both when he said: “I believe the limits of cinema have already been reached by Structuralist filmmakers like Sharits, or by Garrel's early films, for instance. You can't go beyond that. But if a filmmaker's experiments are true to his or her perception and personality, the medium's possibilities are constantly renewed.” Now, occasionally a film does come along, like “Leviathan” (2012), which really does manage to expand cinema in terms of new techniques born of new technology- and by this I mean something really different and not just a bigger, louder way of doing something that’s always been done. But these are very rare.

SF:  Similarly, do artists such as Clare Langan seem to you to be working in the same tradition of experimental cinema? It seems to me that, perhaps also due to much of the work being ultimately available online, barriers between works classed differently due to their context of exhibition are weaker than before, and more work exists in liminal spaces between these contexts, but is this something which you'd agree with or would you say artists' cinema is a separate tradition to your work or the work Mark O'Connor classes as the avant-garde?

MLC: Boundaries have certainly become more fluid generally. With everything up for grabs, it comes down to how you define yourself. My culture is cinema: film history, including experimental film but not exclusively that. I’ve done live performance, installations, sound work, and videos made specifically for the internet that address internet consumption of moving images. But the subject is always, somehow, cinema. I’m always working as a filmmaker, in the sense of Serge Daney’s distinction between love of cinema and passion for cinema: the former is unquestioning acceptance of cinema as is, the latter the desire to question it and test its limits. Today these limits are extremely blurred and what I do reflects that but always with a sense of responsibility to cinema’s history. I don’t know if this answers your question exactly but I think it serves as an example of the current fluidity of these boundaries.


SF:  Speaking of international influences, considering that obviously the EFS itself is in an international organisation founded in Iran -- is it coherent to still speak of this kind of cinema in national terms? In other words, when Irish filmmakers may be working abroad, when filmmakers not born in Ireland may be working here with Irish influences, and when much work is effectively exhibited globally via the internet, is work, to your mind, still divisible into 'Irish experimental cinema' and 'non-Irish experimental cinema'?

RR:  When I was living in Iran I was a complete alien. I made films with limited resources and screened them to my limited circle of friends. I had no connection whatsoever to Iranian society, government or anything else. I just didn’t care about anything except making films and screening them in an ‘underground’ environment.

When I moved to Ireland, I practically resumed the same attitude. I don’t believe in national cinema, I only believe in the ‘continent of cinema’ that all of the films belong to. They belong to everyone from any nationality. I never felt like I belonged to any specific place or culture. I think EFS films are very much universal and can be understood by any creature including extra-terrestrial life. As far as I am concerned, regarding my own work and some EFS fellow filmmakers like Max Le Cain and Dean Kavanagh, we could well be on Mars and we would still make the exact same type of films. Having said that, we are very much in debt to many Irish organisations and NGOs such as The Arts Council of Ireland, IFI, Cork Film Centre/Gallery, The Guesthouse Cork, Triskel Arts Centre, Chester Beatty Library and other places, without their tremendous support we would not be able to continue, so in that sense I am extremely grateful to Ireland.

DK:  What is so wonderful and important about EFS is that it is international with different voices from all corners. But nationality has never been something very important to me, I first became truly aware of it when I was filling out my first festival submission form and then my passport; I think of it as a technicality. If an artist lives in a certain place and produces work in that place he is contributing to the culture of that place, so in that sense I am an Irish filmmaker but if I moved to Brazil it would get complicated.

Perhaps I am an Irish filmmaker by-proxy and my films are said to contain many specifically ‘Irish’/rural landscapes and ‘Irish’ faces, though this is a byproduct of shooting in your own backyard, I think there is something there beyond the very obvious national identity, something far more universal, more complex. I would consider what I am producing to be a very personal cinema that is not specifically national. Perhaps it is not for me to decide.

MLC: The basic tenet of EFS is personal filmmaking. Questions of the national identity of our work don’t really concern us when we make films. It just isn’t terribly relevant. Of course, we all have our own cultural baggage but I think it’s true to say that we’d be doing more or less the same films wherever we were. It’s also interesting to note that, beyond EFS, most of the best-known Irish experimental filmmakers have been resident abroad or made work abroad. Perhaps we are still waiting for a properly Irish experimental cinema.


SF:  Max, with “Cloud of Skin”, you're making your debut solo feature film. In mainstream cinema, there's a widespread perception that shortform work exists more as a 'proving ground' for talent, that the important work is in longform, feature-length films. What are your feelings on the difference between short and longer works? Is there a substantive one, beyond the length itself? Does this carry over into experimental cinema, or is it perhaps purely an aspect of how mainstream cinema is exhibited? Do you think there's more of a space now for longform experimental works?

MLC: Certainly the sense of a ‘short’ work being less important than a longer one does not exist in the history of experimental film, where most of the classics are shorts. I remember being delighted by a comment British experimental filmmaker John Smith made at a symposium on short film in 2005: “I don’t like it when people call me a short filmmaker, I’m actually quite tall!” In an ideal world, each film should find its own appropriate length. (So far, the shortest I’ve gone is three seconds! And the longest remains to be seen.) But with the increased availability of digital technology, this ‘ideal world’ is arguably upon us with the restrictive costs attached to shooting on film no longer an issue unless, of course, you’re sticking to shooting film. Getting films seen is another issue, but producing them is far more achievable even with no budget.


SF:  Having just come to the end of a crowd-funding campaign, does this seem to you the way forward for experimental works, or are more traditional means of funding better?

MLC: There are basically two ways of getting experimental films funded in Ireland, outside of paying for everything yourself. One is through grants, the other through crowd funding. The sense I get with crowd funding is that people are getting jaded with it, there are so many campaigns going on. So it’s probably something you can only really do once successfully. Grants from public funding bodies are great but, by their very nature, are not consistent. And money available for such grants is constantly shrinking so the field is becoming more competitive. There isn’t a culture of private patronage in this country. So I guess we’ll all have to turn to crime sooner or later!  


SF:  The work of the EFS often incorporates DSLRs -- while, I appreciate, not being restricted to such -- and Donal Foreman has claimed that use of DSLRs "enabled a more extensive exploration of vintage and hand-altered lenses and filtration" in your work. Do you think modern technologies have significantly expanded the palette of what is possible in experimental cinema?

RR:  Again I can only really talk about my own work as other EFS filmmakers use a variety of devices and cameras. Personally I am a huge advocate of digital technology and, in my feature films as well as Homo Sapiens Project, I have always tried to push the boundaries of this medium.

I come from a photographic background so it is only natural that I use this experience extensively in my films. That is why I am very interested in lenses, filters, creative lighting techniques, in-camera colour grading, stroboscopic techniques etc. Digital cameras and post-production facilities are the tools of our time and I believe filmmakers must explore and even exploit them as much as they can. Cinema is a 100% technological machine that needs to be pushed to the extreme limits. I have always tried to surprise myself by experimenting with modern technology.


SF:  Finally, I wonder if there's a specific aspect or set of work in the experimental film scene in Ireland you're particularly interested in or excited by?

DK:  I am very excited by many of the activities that happen between Cork and Dublin. There have been and will be some excellent screening, performance, expanded cinema and music events taking place. Specifically I am excited about the possibility of an experimental cinema here in Ireland and the thanks goes to my friends Rouzbeh Rashidi and Maximilian Le Cain who have carved an exciting, challenging and vibrant cinema scene, making it a positive place to create more works.

MLC: Outside of Rouzbeh, Dean and Michael, I think what Alan Lambert is doing is extraordinary. I’m a big fan of his two feature films. And, as I mentioned earlier, I admire Vivienne Dick’s work very much as well.

RR:  I do not look at cinema in that way. I won’t try to find interesting things simply because they belong to a certain nationality, culture or heritage. In my view, at present all the territories and boundaries have crumbled down. Many great things and fascinating activities are happening in so many different parts of the world and I try to absorb them as much as possible.

  • August 2014