Peter Kubelka’s 1966 film “Unsere Afrikareise” or “Our Trip to Africa” is without question, remarkably a unique form of artistic candor. Kubelka is an incredibly gifted visionary; whose passion and lust for film is evident in each and every one of his pieces. Known, however not for his Box Office Blockbusters, but for a more elegant and ‘vanilla” approach to his work in relation to filmmaking. His vision for this particular experimental genre is refreshing for the sheer fact of the simplicity it demonstrates.
The premise of the film is a group of “white” Europeans whom embark on a hunting trip in Africa; whilst hunting for sport as well as intermingling with the locals. However, we must keep in mind that the decade in which this film is …show more content…
There is no uniformed order to a single aspect of the film, no knowledge and or concept of the time of day; no evident time relativity of the trip is known for any single-shot; the only thing truly identifiable is that the film was shot within the continent of Africa. However, doing so has an immediate effect on the viewer; the mind immediately attempts to make sense of the images shown, which can prove to be difficult due to the unique form and style of editing, most experimental films commonly express; not including the fact that this specific genre usually withholds the use of a narrative. In my eyes, what makes the film unique is the amount of guessing and uncertainty there is; which for all intensive purposes, is what an experimental film should cultivate. An experimental is left for the viewer to decipher what the artist is trying to convey, essentially it’s all up for interpretation. We’re left unbeknownst however, if the expedition was deemed successful. What and if any indigenous animals were hunted; a part from those shown on film, along with no notion of any psychological relationships established with any single form of any African inhabitants. Perhaps, however, that is what Kubelka wanted. As many great experimental filmmakers do, they leave us pondering in our own thoughts trying to convey or interpret what we are being presented. “It …show more content…
It started out as a home movie. No different than pulling out your iPhone at the Animal kingdom safari in Walt Disney World, with no intentions of creating any source of artistic representation other than fact of just capturing something that captivates and gages your interest. But as more images are brought to the forefront, Kubelka supplants his affection for sense of preliminary neutrality and conveys it beautifully, and the out-of-order edits really hit home. This editing properly demonstrates how an experimental film makes no effort, nor is obligated to develop any or one character. Though, actual human beings can be seen throughout the film, this essentially says to the viewer: “Here’s the story, but we’re going to first show you the ending, then the beginning and then the middle. Essentially, we’re going to do what we want and there’s no particular uniformed order in which it needs to be conveyed”. (Sitney, Adams P.
The premise of the film is a group of “white” Europeans whom embark on a hunting trip in Africa; whilst hunting for sport as well as intermingling with the locals. However, we must keep in mind that the decade in which this film is …show more content…
There is no uniformed order to a single aspect of the film, no knowledge and or concept of the time of day; no evident time relativity of the trip is known for any single-shot; the only thing truly identifiable is that the film was shot within the continent of Africa. However, doing so has an immediate effect on the viewer; the mind immediately attempts to make sense of the images shown, which can prove to be difficult due to the unique form and style of editing, most experimental films commonly express; not including the fact that this specific genre usually withholds the use of a narrative. In my eyes, what makes the film unique is the amount of guessing and uncertainty there is; which for all intensive purposes, is what an experimental film should cultivate. An experimental is left for the viewer to decipher what the artist is trying to convey, essentially it’s all up for interpretation. We’re left unbeknownst however, if the expedition was deemed successful. What and if any indigenous animals were hunted; a part from those shown on film, along with no notion of any psychological relationships established with any single form of any African inhabitants. Perhaps, however, that is what Kubelka wanted. As many great experimental filmmakers do, they leave us pondering in our own thoughts trying to convey or interpret what we are being presented. “It …show more content…
It started out as a home movie. No different than pulling out your iPhone at the Animal kingdom safari in Walt Disney World, with no intentions of creating any source of artistic representation other than fact of just capturing something that captivates and gages your interest. But as more images are brought to the forefront, Kubelka supplants his affection for sense of preliminary neutrality and conveys it beautifully, and the out-of-order edits really hit home. This editing properly demonstrates how an experimental film makes no effort, nor is obligated to develop any or one character. Though, actual human beings can be seen throughout the film, this essentially says to the viewer: “Here’s the story, but we’re going to first show you the ending, then the beginning and then the middle. Essentially, we’re going to do what we want and there’s no particular uniformed order in which it needs to be conveyed”. (Sitney, Adams P.