I understand how one can judge this as a bad film, I myself felt this was the case for many years. Actually I've felt this way about many of Ray Dennis Stecklers films only to return, because somehow these films have some sort of magic to them i.e. a mysterious staying power.
I've criticized all the usual things one would criticize because I too was conditioned to judge film by traditional standards, but somehow find myself coming back to these films, again and again. I now appreciate the very things I had criticized because they're really part of the film as an organic whole.
That these films don't conform to the golden rule of creating and maintaining an illusion is irrelevant, because this was not Ray's objective. His approach is more auteur based, where you experience the presence of the filmmaker him/herself behind every frame, in what becomes a multi faceted experience of how a filmmaker expresses oneself and their subject matter. A more idiosyncratic sensibility emerges as one film merges such conflicted influences of the French new wave, classic Hollywood, B movies, home movie aesthetics, Cinema Verite, Antonioni, to what is his own invention in what has come to be seen as Camp or Pop Art. One can certainly discern this from film to film, in addition to his interviews/commentary tracks, where he himself acknowledges, this. That he in part made films about films.
I thought of Sinthia the Devil Doll, as I mentioned earlier, as a bad film, ONLY to find that there is much that is memorable and redeeming about it. Cinematically you'll find Ray experimenting quite extensively with super-impositions, gestural hand held camera-work, editing and expressionistic lighting that, like Munch, portrays dissonance in what is the tortured psyche of a troubled woman. What I most appreciate was how Ray, through these various means, had created and sustained a unique atmosphere, that is at once eerie and dreamlike. It is to such a degree that one experiences the film as a literal transcribing of the character's mind/psyche/thought processes. It's more of a subjective approach that is similar to certain, 'experimental' films, such as those of Kenneth Anger.
I recommend that one watch this film as it's own complete vision. To do so, I urge the viewer to see beyond the confines/ prejudices/ conditioning over what is considered 'good' or 'bad' in film, because while they're some flaws, (particularly the interludes between the girl and a psychiatrist, scenes Ray was forced to add), there is much the low budget adds to the nightmarish quality. It's the claustrophobic sets, non glamorous casting, amateurish acting that lend the film it's own surrealistic identity.
I've criticized all the usual things one would criticize because I too was conditioned to judge film by traditional standards, but somehow find myself coming back to these films, again and again. I now appreciate the very things I had criticized because they're really part of the film as an organic whole.
That these films don't conform to the golden rule of creating and maintaining an illusion is irrelevant, because this was not Ray's objective. His approach is more auteur based, where you experience the presence of the filmmaker him/herself behind every frame, in what becomes a multi faceted experience of how a filmmaker expresses oneself and their subject matter. A more idiosyncratic sensibility emerges as one film merges such conflicted influences of the French new wave, classic Hollywood, B movies, home movie aesthetics, Cinema Verite, Antonioni, to what is his own invention in what has come to be seen as Camp or Pop Art. One can certainly discern this from film to film, in addition to his interviews/commentary tracks, where he himself acknowledges, this. That he in part made films about films.
I thought of Sinthia the Devil Doll, as I mentioned earlier, as a bad film, ONLY to find that there is much that is memorable and redeeming about it. Cinematically you'll find Ray experimenting quite extensively with super-impositions, gestural hand held camera-work, editing and expressionistic lighting that, like Munch, portrays dissonance in what is the tortured psyche of a troubled woman. What I most appreciate was how Ray, through these various means, had created and sustained a unique atmosphere, that is at once eerie and dreamlike. It is to such a degree that one experiences the film as a literal transcribing of the character's mind/psyche/thought processes. It's more of a subjective approach that is similar to certain, 'experimental' films, such as those of Kenneth Anger.
I recommend that one watch this film as it's own complete vision. To do so, I urge the viewer to see beyond the confines/ prejudices/ conditioning over what is considered 'good' or 'bad' in film, because while they're some flaws, (particularly the interludes between the girl and a psychiatrist, scenes Ray was forced to add), there is much the low budget adds to the nightmarish quality. It's the claustrophobic sets, non glamorous casting, amateurish acting that lend the film it's own surrealistic identity.