Maya Deren - Filmmaker
The 1940s is often considered to be the Golden Age of Hollywood and was also the decade that Maya Deren began making her best-known films. Maya Deren believed that the art of film had so much more potential than what it was being used for. In her various articles on film and filmmaking, she praises and encourages creative use of the camera, new ways of storytelling and the absolute freedom that comes along with being an independent filmmaker. Deren also had her own ideas about what constituted creativity and what did not. By doing this, her articles about the art of film actually become as restrictive as the studio system she denounced.
In her essay An Anagram of Ideas on Art, Form and Film Maya Deren is comparing artists and scientists, and how they both use the tools of their trade to create a "new reality". Scientists started out simply observing reality before eventually altering it themselves. She goes on to discuss the more direct relationship of science and technology with art. Stating that the maker of the camera is just as important to the photograph as the photographer is. She argues that scientists are also artists and that because mainstream filmmakers do not see this comparison, Hollywood films, in Deren's words, become cliche and irrelevant. She argues that films use everyday language, and try to have relatable characters and situations, but that the most popular plays throughout history have had unrealistic fantastical situations and characters, with artistic poetic language. She says film should rely on the movement of the camera, not the actors, because other art forms, such as dance and theatre, already utilize that. Deren's philosophy is that art is simply an "anagram of ideas", which can be rearranged in any order and still "make sense", but in a different way. She believes that an artist can create something realistic, but that that reality doesn't necessarily have to exist. Because reality and reason is always changing and evolving around the knowledge people possess. Rain was once thought to be caused by God, which was accepted as reality. But as new information was discovered that reality changed, so to Deren there really is no reality, except what we perceive it to be. Maya thought that we could use that basis to create our own realities with their own rules, or no rules, by using the mind in tandem with new technology. Deren argues that humans have a need to do this, just as she does, because she has found that the scientists had a need to alter reality, rather than just observing it. Artists must use cameras to create rather than observe. Deren believes that art should strive to not only reflect, but expand the culture from which it comes. Her main argument in this article is that film is a form of art that should combine science and art to create new realities.
Throughout the articles I have read by Maya Deren, her main idea about film as an art form has always been that the visual aspect is more important than character or story, or rather that those things should be created solely visually. In her articles, Magic is New and Amateur vs Professional she also talks about these ideas, albeit more broadly. In Amateur, she discusses the freedoms of being an amateur filmmaker, offering the artist the ability to use their own creativity to its fullest potential. By not being tied to a studio or production company one can truly make a film their own, doing whatever they want with it. However she also believes that because amateur filmmaking offers this freedom, one shouldn't attempt to emulate the Hollywood formula, instead, they should create films that would not be possible under the constraints of Hollywood storytelling.
When discussing photography in her Anagram of Ideas essay, she makes the argument that the maker of the camera is just as important as the photographer, when it comes to the finished product. She says that, just as Kodak's slogan incurs, "you hit the button, we do the rest". She argues that because the camera is capable of taking quality photographs, a photographer would never be able to take the photographs they do. I find this argument to be a little undeveloped. Should the maker of a piano be considered equally responsible for a song composed on that piano? What about the makers of paint brushes, or even pencils? Is the maker of Harper Lee's typewriter equally responsible for to Kill a Mockingbird as she?
Of course, I absolutely see where this argument comes from, as not long before Maya Deren wrote this, photographs were extremely difficult to take. Much more skill went into even being able to take a clear photo, never mind what it was of, or how the camera was positioned. So while new camera technology made it possible for just about anyone to take a clear photo, did that mean that there was no art to it anymore? A very similar debate is actually happening today, with the invention of digital cameras. It's almost impossible to take a bad picture with a digital camera, so is it a lost art? Deren was looking at much of the same situation. However, I would argue that even though a camera that is easier to use now allowed the average person to take a nice-looking photograph of their kids, or of some pretty flowers, that did not diminish the art of photography. I think, that because cameras were now easier to use, it opened up more possibilities for photographers. Now that they didn't have to focus nearly as much on the clarity of the picture, they could instead invest their creativity in creating new scenarios, playing with angles and other such experimentations.
Experimentations that Deren herself praises when working with a camera, whether video or still. I suppose while she probably could see the connection I have illustrated above, she may have seen the value of science unlocking these possibilities as a part of its equal importance to the artist, but still, just because they allowed for these artistic experiments to take place, they still did not come up with the ideas. Furthermore, Kodak and other such companies did not develop more accessible and reliable cameras so that photographers could take more risks, they did it so that they could widen their demographic. By making a camera ordinary people could work, they would make more money.
When Deren speaks of Hollywood films, she attributes a major cause for their creative failure in that they are trying to create relatable characters and situations, using everyday language. Anagram was published in 1941. The same year as the release as such films as Citizen Kane, The Wolfman and Dumbo. While these films did not attempt the dreamlike narrative Deren was so fond of, they certainly did not use relatable situations, but rather used outlandish and fantastical situations, not unlike the theatre examples of Shakespeare and Oedipus Deren uses in her article. I would argue that the main characters of these films and films like them were not relatable because people saw themselves in them, or could say they've gone through what the protagonists go through, but rather because they are simply likeable, or in the case of Citizen Kane fascinating and pitiful. That is where the investment in the stories and characters from audience members comes from, not relatability or a reflection of reality.
These three films, I have chosen as examples because they are the most mainstream, and remembered films from that year, and Deren's writing is particularly against the mainstream. Deren believes a successful film should use the moving picture to create a new reality with different rules than the real world, but still, rules, so that it may seem realistic, if not necessarily real. All three of these films do that, and although their narratives are simpler and more structured than that of a Maya Deren film, they still technically achieve these criteria. However, Deren also believes that the film’s story should be able to be told visually, rather than through the use of dialogue. Citizen Kane admittedly does have a lot of dialogue, a lot of famous dialogue even, but it also has several key moments that are told purely visually. One of the most important character-defining moments is the scene where Charles Foster Kane looks into the mirror, opposite another mirror, and stares into his eternal reflection. Even though the film is dialogue-heavy, most of Kane's dialogue is lies, part of the character persona and it is only through looking closely at the visuals the director provides us with can we begin to understand the true meaning of the film.
Similarly, Dumbo's main character is completely mute. Now some may argue that this film is not a comparable example to Deren's work, as she puts so much emphasis on the camera, and animated films do not use a physical camera. However, the animator still uses the idea of the camera in their illustrations, and an animated film is storyboarded in the exact same way a live-action film would be. Although this film uses dialogue from its supporting characters, it heavily relies on its visual elements to get the real story across. What are the most well-remembered scenes from that film? The "Pink Elephants", Dumbo visiting his mother, the setting up of the circus tent. All scenes with little to no dialogue. Not only that but those scenes are particularly creative and experimental, something Deren holds much importance to.
So what is her problem with Hollywood films? Because the criticisms she presents don't entirely hold up.
And, although she often compares the two, film and theatre are not the same. In theatre, everything must be exaggerated and over the top in order to get ideas across to the audience. Like my high school drama teacher used to say "you've gotta make this understood all the way in the back row." The audience is so far away from the action, that in short, there's no subtlety in theatre. Film allows the audience to get as close as they need to, so not only can you use all kinds of subtlety to tell stories, but directors often use things like camera angles, placement on screen and shadows to show a character's true intentions. Deren questions why films insist on telling small stories when the best plays tell big stories. Well, the answer is exactly that. Film is the only visual medium that small subtle stories can be told in.
I think that Deren is wrong when she says things like "film should use the movement of camera, not the movement of people" or "films should rely on visuals, not dialogue" or "films shouldn't strive for realism". By having all of these "films should" and "films should not's" all she's doing is creating a new set of rules. Something she claims to be so free from. In her article Amateur she talks about how freeing it is to be an amateur filmmaker, to be free from the demands and rules of a studio system, yet in the same article, she says that because you are free of that, amateur filmmakers should not try to make films that could have been produced by a studio.
She says that films should only utilize camera movement, not movement of the actor because we already have art forms that utilize that. But why? Why can't film do both? All of this denunciation of Hollywood films has only created another box for Deren. By rejecting all these ideas all she's doing is creating a new rigid system of rules, so much like the studio's rules, she opposes so passionately, for stifling creativity. But without realizing it, her way of thinking also stifles creativity. The way I do things is creative, and if your films aren't like mine then you are not creative. Her main recurring theme is that films should be free, creative and limitless. That film can express anything and everything, yet she constantly contradicts this throughout her writings by giving extensive lists of dos and don'ts.
I can admit that Maya Deren's films are really not my thing, but I can still appreciate them on an artistic level. I can still regard Deren highly (and I do) for trying something so different with film, at a time when hardly anyone was. I can also appreciate the parts of her films that work, even though I don't think the film may work as a whole. Maya Deren though does not extend this same objectiveness to the films of others, or at least not in the narrative she presents herself in through her articles. Most people are able to recognize that although a piece of art may have flaws, it can still have some value. Deren seems to see film on a pass or fail basis.
Throughout her articles when talking about other forms of art she quite often will bring up a specific example to support her statement. However, although she has talked about the problems in Hollywood films many times, she has never actually cited an example that supports her thesis. It leads one to wonder if she's ever seen a Hollywood film. Although I'm sure she must have seen at least a handful, and I don't think she is a liar by any means, it would help her argument greatly if she could come up with some examples for all the claims she makes about studio films.
Maya Deren speaks of machines as a scientific creation, whose whole is greater than the sum of its part, yet the parts remain the same, however, you can rearrange these part to create any type of machine you like. She believes that film is a unique art form in that it is scientific and artistic, creating new reality. But if you're doing that why put restrictions on yourself or others? Deren's recurring message of complete freedom and creative control is a great one but is contradicted by herself in every article. She makes claims about what is and isn't artistic, setting up rigid rules for filmmaking without realizing it, and thus doing exactly what she advocates against.