Avant-Garde Over the Years: Is It Still Here?

Avant-garde, also sometimes referred to as experimentalism, can be hard to define. Because its main goal and purpose is to defy and challenge norms of whatever medium is being made, it seems impractical and impossible to place rigid boundaries around it through a specific definition. Avant-garde is most well defined by the phrase, “you know it when you see it”, meaning even if you cannot define the genre constraints of avant-garde or explain what it means, you can still identify it when it is visible. This is especially so regarding films that are considered landmark films of the avant-garde movement, such as those from filmmakers such as Maya Deren or Stan Brakhage, or even earlier ‘horror’ films like that of Nosferatu (F.W Murnau, 1922) or Les Vampires (Feuillade, 1915), that have such distinct styles, forms, and narratives (or lack thereof) that it is more easily described as avant-garde/experimental. However, does the avant-garde still exist in later film periods or even in the present day? To answer this question I will first discuss the origins and history of avant garde film and how traditional/landmark avant garde films have been understood and defined. Then, I will discuss the development of avant garde film and how these traditions of avant garde evolved over time. Lastly, I will attempt to answer the question of whether or not avant garde still exists. In doing so, I argue that avant garde does still exist, but it evolves over time in order to continue upholding the values of avant garde such as experimentalism, challenging mainstream cinema, and raising questions of critiques of social issues. 

In order to discuss whether or not avant-garde is still alive in the present day, it is important to first have an understanding of what exactly avant-garde is, what its purposes and goals are, and how it came to be. Avant-garde film is typically treated by its creators as an art form, rather than a form for storytelling as cinema is often understood (Pramagiorre and Wallis, 11). Avant-garde was made in a sort of opposition to mainstream films, both in the content and the methods of filmmaking. Early avant-garde film is regarded as having begun in Britain in the 1920s and 1930s, with heavy influence and inspiration from Eisenstein and the Soviet Montage movement from present day Russia (O’Pray, 38). As social and political life changed in Britain, so did avant-garde, which began incorporating these social and political themes in their films around the early 1930s. This shift further propelled avant-garde ideals of being anti-mainstream and there began to be increased surrealist influence in the films (O’Pray, 38-39). By the postwar period, American filmmakers became inspired by European avant-garde and the American films became a place for ‘personal cinema’. This era of avant-garde emphasized expression and art in film and became dominated by surrealist, experimental ‘narrative’ films (O’Pray, 49).

Filmmakers’ goals with avant-garde was to challenge typical conventions of filmmaking and was made in response to, and in hopes to change, ‘bourgeois modernity’ (Turvey, 2-3). This bourgeois modernity that many filmmakers and scholars name when discussing avant-garde refers to increasing urbanization, capitalism, and technological development (Turvey, 4). The rejection of mainstream, narrative, Hollywood cinema included a rejection of these increases in urbanization, capitalism, and technology that was so often present in the mainstream film industry. As a result, avant-garde filmmakers tended to have little to no explicit narrative, and where there was narrative, it functioned more abstractly and dreamlike such as that seen in Maya Deren’s, Meshes of the Afternoon (1943). These filmmakers also worked within smaller budgets, experimented with alternative ways of filmmaking, and placed emphasis on the visual aspects of the film as well as in incorporating social and/or political commentary, as had been an important feature in avant-garde development in Britain. Maya Deren, who is often given the title of ‘Mother of Avant-Garde’, emphasized the importance of of the body and the imaginative mind when creating films in her criticisms of Hollywood filmmaking: “Improve your films not by adding more equipment and personnel but by using what you have to its fullest capacity. The most important part of your equipment is yourself” (Deren, 45). Deren also criticized the lack of art and imagination in the Hollywood filmmaking formula, as well as the increasing commercialism within the industry, further emphasizing the need for avant-garde and its rejection of this mainstream form of cinema (Brody). Other artists and filmmakers that were active and now heralded as some of the pioneers of these earlier stages of avant-garde include Sidney Peterson, Kenneth Anger, Luis Buñuel, and Stan Brakhage.

In looking at the origins and historical evolution of avant-garde film, while there are still limitations in creating a specific definition for the genre/movement, there does arise certain characteristics which can be used to help more accurately described what makes a film avant-garde - or, rather, what all avant-garde films and filmmakers have in common. The main contenders for these would be experimental film styles and filmmaking techniques, emphasis on film as an art/emphasis on the visual aspects of film, an exploration or interrogation of social and/or political issues, limited and unconventional narratives, and finally, being in opposition of and actively challenging Hollywood and other mainstream cinema. Using these common traits and goals of avant-garde cinema and filmmakers as a loose guideline for how to recognize avant-garde, it becomes less of a challenge to identify avant-garde cinema. More importantly, this guideline can be used to detect avant-garde film over time, how it continued to evolve and how, through its evolution, it is still present in modern day. 

As avant-garde cinema evolved over time it tended to find itself intertwined with and in relation to the styles/genres of kitsch and camp. Similarly to avant-garde, kitsch and camp can be hard to define and also fit the previously mentioned claim of ‘you know it when you see it’. While these two styles are often identified through visual aspects and ideas of good versus bad taste, like avant-garde, there are inherent social and political critiques and contexts through which they function. While kitsch may be described as simply ‘bad taste’, it functions by borrowing strategies and themes from ‘legitimate’, good taste culture and reworking them in order to make some sort of statement (Silverberg, 138). Camp, similarly, is inextricably linked with queer counter culture and thus functions as a political critique of mainstream culture, while also emphasizing the performative and stylized aspects of the self (Silverberg, 140). These crucial aspects of kitsch and camp reflect that of the previously discussed traditional avant-garde, particularly in their rejection and critique of mainstream cinema, their shared emphasis on visual aspects, art, and the body/self, and their shared aim and actions of social and political critique within their work. Evidently, avant-garde may often be described as camp or kitsch, and vice versa, due to their similarities both visually and in terms of content, especially in modern day, thereby illustrating one way in which avant-garde has evolved and transformed through various cultures and styles over time. 

Having discussed the history and evolution of avant-garde cinema, as well as setting basic parameters and characteristics of the style, we approach the question of whether or not it still exists in modern day. I argue that avant-garde as it has been described here does still exist. However, because of the fairly loose characteristics and lack of rigid definitions, it may appear differently than the works of the pioneers. Because avant-garde aims to challenge mainstream modes of cinema and provide social and political critiques, it must continue to evolve and change as modes of film and social and political contexts change. In other words, just as the world which avant-garde aims to subvert changes, the style must also change in order to keep up with its aims of subversion. In order to demonstrate this and how avant-garde functions in modern day, I will discuss modern films and filmmakers and compare them with traditional avant-garde goals, characteristics, and filmmakers in order to illustrate the similarities between them. The modern day filmmakers I will be focusing on are David Lynch and David Cronenberg, both of which can be described as avant-garde surrealist filmmakers through the ways in which they subvert expectations and provide social commentary through their films. 

Cronenberg, a Canadian filmmaker most well known for his science fiction films which destroy typical norms and gratification in mainstream cinema (Podoshen, 275), arguably reflects and upholds the goals and values of avant-garde cinema in his work. His films tend to focus on the human body and the effects of technology on the body. This is most prevalent in his film Videodrome (1983), which follows the main character, Max (James Woods) and his slow fall into the mind control of the public access network, Videodrome. While this film may differ from non-linear narratives of traditional avant-garde cinema, the social critique through surrealism continues to uphold values of subversion within the avant-garde movement by using body horror in order to demonstrate fears and concerns over the “domination of television over society” (Podoshen, 180-181). Throughout the film, Max becomes increasingly interested in the derogatory images shown on Videodrome and as his interest progresses, so does the control wielded over Max’s mind by Videodrome. Towards the end of the film, as it approaches the climax of Max’s loss of consciousness under Videodrome, his body turns into a vessel for technology to infiltrate; his torso morphs into a VCR and his mind and body become fully subject to the control of Videodrome as one of the channel’s workers inputs a videotape into Max’s VCR stomach. As Max’s mind control progresses further, he is given a gun to do further work for Videodrome, which slowly morphs into his own hand, further turning his body into a vessel, controlled by and changed for the increasing role technology plays in human life.

While this film may appear first as science fiction or horror, or both, avant-garde ideals are still present. Although traditional avant-garde cinema did not address the same specific issues as Cronenberg, such as television, videotapes, and modern technology, they addressed issues, even issues of changing technology,  relevant to them at the time. In Charlie Chaplin’s, Modern Times (1936), Chaplin raises concerns regarding the transition to talkies (sound films) at the time, even going so far as to vilify sound and speech by only having the head boss speak throughout the entire film. His limited use of sound in the film not only addresses his concerns with the departure from silent films (his origins of success), but also addresses and critiques the dangers of increased urbanization and capitalism as is represented through the loud head boss. Although Chaplin is not often considered to be a pioneer of the avant-garde movement in the same way someone like Maya Deren was, his work still heavily influenced and potentially was influenced by avant-garde, especially its emphasis on social and political commentary, as well as his pushing of boundaries and experimental techniques. Both Chaplin and Cronenberg provide criticism into increased and changing forms of technology that were relevant to each of them at the time of their filmmaking. While Chaplin explicitly opposed the new ways of filmmaking and of sound films in the 1930s in Modern Times (Bordwell & Thompson, 199), Cronenberg addressed the increasing presence and dangers that television and changing technology were having in people’s everyday lives in the 1980s in Videodrome, albeit in a far more surrealist way. 

Cronenberg’s emphasis on the body and his emphasis on body horror further reflects aspects of subversion that are of great importance to avant-garde cinema. Similarly to Maya Deren’s ideals for cinema, Cronenberg’s Videodrome not only places heavy importance and emphasis on the body, the mind, and creativity, it also subverts expectations of film by directly addressing and critiquing the medium of film, television, and entertainment. Deren stressed the need for increased creativity in film as well as criticized the increased commercialism within the film industry (Brody) and Videodrome successfully checks these boxes. While the film is widely acclaimed and now considered to be an iconic science fiction horror film, it certainly did not meet expectations of mainstream cinema at the time of its release, with many who attended initial screenings describing it as having “sucked” and claiming that the film was so disgusting they did not enjoy anything about it (Janus Films). Similarly to the origins of avant-garde film, Videodrome was successful at the time of its release in engaging in creative ways of making a film, through aspects of body horror and surrealism, while also offering up social commentary on changing technology. In doing so, it upholds important values of the avant-garde movement, particularly those involving experimentation, focus on visual aspects and the body/self, and the inclusion of social critique and challenges to mainstream cinema. Although it may differ from the types of avant-garde cinema one may expect from the pioneers in the early 20th century, Videodrome’s inclusion of these avant-garde traits illustrate how avant-garde still exists in modern day. Although the forms and issues addressed and challenged by Cronenberg are different in specificity to those addressed in avant-garde films of the past, they remain similar in principle, as they both function to undermine the functions and expectations of mainstream cinema and to address social issues from the historical context in which they occur.

David Lynch is another modern filmmaker whose work is often classified and discussed in relation to the avant-garde film movement. His most notable works in regards to avant-garde are Eraserhead, Mulholland Drive, and the television series Twin Peaks. These hallmark works of his, as well as Lynch as a filmmaker overall, are most notably recognized for their surrealism in both his feature length films and television shows, often creating confusion for spectators. Lynch’s work is often compared to those Maya Deren, particularly her most famous film Meshes of the Afternoon, which is also considered one of the most important films in the avant-garde movement. Meshes uses a non-linear narrative format and dreamlike sequences in order to look into the mind of the main character, what Deren often described as that which cannot be explicitly shown on camera, by representing the interior, subconscious experiences of a person (Ferrier). Meshes also features more abstract moments and symbols, such as keys, mirrors, flowers, and knives to further represent the inner mind of the main female character and her slow loss of reality and descent into insanity (Ferrier). 

Lynch’s Mulholland Drive follows similar styles and forms to that of Deren. Following the aftermath of a car crash, Mulholland Drive also follows the mental workings of the main female character through not only a dreamy, stylized Los Angeles and narrative, but also through the recurring significance of the main character’s dreams/nightmares. She gains messages in these dreams, which later leads to the discovery that everything - the events of the film - are simply an illusion, thus further enhancing the dreamlike narrative style of the film. Motifs and symbols are also important aspects of Mulholland Drive, most notably blue keys which recur throughout and are used to represent the illusory aspects of the film as well as the character’s psyche as she experiences more and more dreams and hallucinations. Similarly to what is considered to be the most important avant-garde film, David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive provides various similarities to Deren’s Meshes and in doing so, challenges mainstream forms of narrative cinema. This focus on disorientation in his film, the use of non-linear narrative form, and the abstract use of symbols and motifs, as well as the clear inspiration taken from the work of traditional avant-garde filmmaker Maya Deren, Lynch’s film provides further evidence of how avant-garde is still alive in present day. While there are of course differences between the two films as well as the way they were made, this does not negate Lynch as an avant-garde filmmaker as avant-garde continues to evolve over time in order to continue to successfully fulfill its goals of subverting expectations and challenging mainstream cinema, all of which Lynch portrays in his film. 

Another way in which Lynch challenges mainstream modes of cinema and thus can be classified as modern day avant-garde is through his television show, Twin Peaks. Similarly to Mulholland Drive, Twin Peaks uses avant-garde styles of dreamlike narratives and actual sequences of dreams and visions not only in the context of storyline and specifically that of non-linear storylines that are present in avant-garde, but also in order to delve deeper into the characters’ psyche. Once again taking inspiration from Maya Deren and Meshes of the Afternoon, Twin Peaks uses extended sequences involving these dreams in order to present the internal feelings and perspectives of specific characters (Shoos et al, 464), consequently making the entirety of the series exist in a dreamlike state. Twin Peaks is particularly important in the discussion of avant-garde and its goal of experimentation and innovation, not only because of these formal and narrative aspects and their relation to the avant-garde movement, but also due to its format as a prime time television show in the early 1990s and again in 2017. The use of unusual camera angles, movements, and extended dream sequences and non-linear narrative were in stark contrast from the look of other prime time series that aired at the same time as Twin Peaks (Shoos et al, 463). 

While series that employ more cinematic elements and delve into characters’ psyches are far more common now, such as those on HBO and AMC, this was not the case when Twin Peaks was originally released, and as a result, experienced a high loss of viewers, thus leading to its cancellation after only two seasons. Despite this, Twin Peaks has amassed a cult following since its initial release it is often credited as being the series that changed how television was viewed, taking the platform from being simply entertainment, often deemed lower than film, to a platform that can be just as profound, artistic, and cinematic as feature length films. In this way, Twin Peaks is an example of how avant-garde is still present in modern day and how it must evolve over time to continue to be experimental and to undermine mainstream media. The show challenged mainstream television and subverted expectations of prime time series at the time through its innovative use of unusual camera angles and focus on individual psyches and interior feelings through the use of non-linear, dreamlike narrative structure, all of which reflect traditional avant-garde ideals and work, such as that of Maya Deren. In doing so, the show transformed the medium of television in the years following its release. While this aspect may not have been practiced or ever explicitly discussed by the creators of avant-garde film, due to the fact that television did not yet exist or was very new at the time in which avant-garde originated, what was discussed was innovation and experimentation, both of which are present in Twin Peaks. The way in which David Lynch experimented with the television series as a medium thus proves how avant-garde evolves over time to keep up with current norms (in order to subvert them) and therefore is still alive in modern day.

While there may be no specific definition of avant-garde, a film can be determined to be avant-garde based on loose parameters and common characteristics and goals. Most notably, avant-garde cinema challenges mainstream modes of filmmaking, both in form and in content. It tends to lack narrative and/or have non-linear narrative formats, as well as often contains some form of social or political commentary. As time progresses, as does avant-garde, as can be seen in its eventual relation to kitsch and camp styles. In modern day, avant-garde does still exist. However, it must continue to evolve in order to uphold its main values of experimentation, innovation, and subversion, all of which are dependent on the time period in which it occurs. In looking at more modern works by David Cronenberg and David Lynch, these main principles, goals, and basic characteristics are still present. While Cronenberg uses the avant-garde-esque emphasis on the body in order to raise critiques surrounding increasing technology in Videodrome, Lynch lean into aspects of narrative, or lack thereof, dreams, and the internal processes of the individual in Mulholland Drive and Twin Peaks. The latter provides further innovation in the way in which it challenged and changed expectations of television, another aspect of his work which fits avant-garde’s goals of subversion and experimentation. Therefore, in looking at these two filmmakers and how their work continues to uphold the main values and goals of avant-garde, as well as how avant-garde must evolve to remain relevant and succeed in its goal of challenging mainstream media, this concludes that avant-garde is still alive in modern day.