‘Roger Ekirch claims that before modernity, humanity was humbled by the night but also liberated by it. In the dark, men and women cut free of tightly-corseted social convention acted on impulse and desire. Now, Ekirch argues, nighttime has since become the forgotten half of human experience.

‘When Ekirch extends his sympathy from preindustrial folk to their occult practices, an interesting and worthwhile discussion of practical protections against the dangers of night — domestic fortifications and such — descends into a consideration of magical prophylactics, like the practice of “suspending the heart of a bullock or pig over the hearth, preferably stuck with pins and thorns,” to guard against demons coming down the chimney. Practices like this, he maintains, “made ordinary life more susceptible to human control — especially in the hours after sunset when the world seemed most threatening.”

‘He proclaims that “despite night’s dangers, no other realm of preindustrial existence” — meaning, presumably, morning or afternoon — “promised so much autonomy to so many people.” From slaves and servants to indigents and thieves, the underclasses indulged in a frenzy of self-realization. Even prostitutes found “a rare measure of autonomy in a trade that defied patriarchal authority.” It was ill advised to take two steps out of doors after nightfall, but the ample time for self-reflection resulted in an “enhanced self-awareness” among people blessed with “unprecedented freedom to explore their own individuality.” Even if, after sunset, “rogues and miscreants, like wild beasts, emerged from their lairs seeking fresh quarry,” and roving street gangs raped at will, it wasn’t all so bad: “Deflowering young women, at its heart, savagely mocked the established order.”

‘Ekirch’s argument is less a history of night than a bizarre sort of elegy for it. He expresses deep reservations about modernity’s profligate illumination. “With darkness diminished,” he warns, “opportunities for privacy, intimacy and self-reflection will grow more scarce.” While others blame television or video games for our cultural decay, Ekirch thinks we’re on an apocalyptic slide into fluorescence.’ — collaged

 

 

‘If humans were truly at home under the light of the moon and stars, we would go in darkness happily, the midnight world as visible to us as it is to the vast number of nocturnal species on this planet. Instead, we are diurnal creatures, with eyes adapted to living in the sun’s light. This is a basic evolutionary fact, even though most of us don’t think of ourselves as diurnal beings any more than we think of ourselves as primates or mammals or Earthlings.

‘Our eyes sense light with two different types of cells: rods and cones. Cone cells can perceive color in bright light. Rod cells perceive black and white images and work best in low light. Rhodopsin is a chemical found in the rods. Rhodopsin is the key to night vision — it is the chemical that the rods use to absorb photons and perceive light. When a molecule of rhodopsin absorbs a photon, it splits into a retinal and an opsin molecule. These molecules later recombine naturally back into rhodopsin at a fixed rate, and recombinati­on is fairly slow.

‘So, when you expose your eyes to bright light, all of the rhodopsin breaks down into retinal and opsin. If you then turn out the lights and try to see in the dark, you can’t. The cones need a lot of light, so they are useless, and there is no rhodopsin now so the rods are useless, too. Over the course of several minutes, however, the retinal and opsin recombine back into rhodopsin, and you can see again.’ — collaged

 

 

Through the course of generations
men brought the night into being.
In the beginning were blindness and dream
and thorns which gash the bare foot
and fear of wolves.
We shall never know who fashioned the word
for the interval of darkness
which divides the two half-lights.
We shall never know in what century it stood
for the starry spaces.
Others began the myth.
They made night mother of the tranquil Fates
who weave all destiny
and sacrificed black sheep to her
and the rooster which announced her end.
The Chaldeans gave her twelve houses;
infinite worlds, the Stoic Portico.
Latin hexameters molded her,
and Pascal’s dread.
Luis de León saw in her the homeland
of his shivering soul.
Now we feel her inexhaustible
as an old wine
and no one can think of her without vertigo,
and time has charged her with eternity.

And to think that night would not exist
without those tenuous instruments, the eyes.

— Jorge Luis Borges

 

 

‘In 1710, Richard Steele wrote in Tatler that recently he had been to visit an old friend just come up to town from the country. But the latter had already gone to bed when Steele called at 8 pm. He returned at 11 o’clock the following morning, only to be told that his friend had just sat down to dinner. “In short”, Steele commented, “I found that my old-fashioned friend religiously adhered to the example of his forefathers, and observed the same hours that had been kept in his family ever since the Conquest”. During the previous generation or so, elites across Europe had moved their clocks forward by several hours. No longer a time reserved for sleep, the night time was now the right time for all manner of recreational and representational purposes. This is what Craig Koslofsky calls “nocturnalisation”, defined as “the ongoing expansion of the legitimate social and symbolic uses of the night”, a development to which he awards the status of “a revolution in early modern Europe”.

‘At the heart of his argument is the contrariety between day and night, light and dark. On the one hand, the sixteenth century witnessed an intensification of the association of the night with evil – “Night, thou foule mother of annoyaunce sad / Sister of heavie Death, and nourse of Woe”, as Edmund Spenser put it. In part this derived from the excited religious atmosphere. While Hans Sachs hailed Martin Luther for waking humanity from the darkness of superstition, Thomas More repaid the nocturnal insult by identifying Lutherans with the dark night of heresy. Closely linked to confessional strife was the intensification of disputes over witchcraft. The witch-hunter’s manual Malleus Maleficarum of 1486 had paid little attention to the night; a century later the night was well and truly diabolized. The Devil was now believed to be responsible for all “phantoms of the night”, especially those resulting from sorcery, so witchcraft confessions typically focused on two nocturnal acts – the diabolic pact, often consummated sexually, and the Witches’ Sabbath, also a riot of sexual licence. Peter Binsfeld, the suffragan Bishop of Trier, explained in 1589 that after his expulsion from Paradise, the Devil became dark and obscure and so performed all his foul deeds at night.

‘Henry III of France, who was assassinated in 1589, usually had his last meal at 6 pm and was tucked up in bed by 8. Louis XIV’s day began with a lever at 9 and ended (officially) at around midnight. The ladies of his court – and plenty of the men too – adapted their maquillage to take advantage of artificial lighting to draw attention to their rosy cheeks, white bosoms, jet black eyebrows and scarlet lips. As with so much else at Versailles, this was a development that served to distance the topmost elite from the rest of the population. Koslofsky speculates that it was driven by the need to find new sources of authority in a confessionally fragmented age.

‘More directly – and convincingly – authoritarian was the campaign to “colonize” the night by reclaiming it from the previously dominant marginal groups. The most effective instrument was street-lighting, introduced to Paris in 1667, Lille also in 1667, Amsterdam in 1669, Hamburg in 1673, Turin in 1675, Berlin in 1682, Copenhagen in 1683, and London, where private companies were contracted to provide the service, between 1684 and 1694. This had little to do with technological progress, for until the nineteenth century only candles and oil lamps were available. Most advanced was the oil lamp developed in the 1660s by Jan van der Heyden, which used a current of air drawn into the protective glass-paned lantern to prevent the accretion of soot, and made Amsterdam the best-lit city in Europe.

‘At the end of the street is the reassuring sight of a nightwatchman, now able to see and protect the respectable citizens. They were the great beneficiaries of the great illumination; the victims were those to whom the streets had belonged when darkness ruled – students, the young in general, servants, vagrants, prostitutes and drinkers. All those, in other words, who had prompted Milton to write: “when night darkens the streets, then wander forth the sons of Belial, flown with insolence and wine”. It was not a victory the authorities won easily (if indeed they ever did). The previous occupants responded with a Kristallnacht of lantern breaking, for which draconian penalties were inflicted – the galleys in France; amputation of a hand in Vienna (where twelve nightwatchmen were murdered between 1649 and 1720). Yet gradually European towns and cities became safer places when the sun went down, and this security promoted forms of social activity beyond whoring, brawling, gambling and drinking. As Koslofsky very reasonably argues, almost all the work on the public sphere has concentrated on locations and institutional forms, and has neglected time.’ — Tim Blanning

 

 

At night the states
I forget them or I wish I was there
in that one under the
Stars. It smells like June in this night
so sweet like air.
I may have decided that the
States are not that tired
Or I have thought so. I have
thought that.

At night the states
And the world not that tired
—-of everyone
Maybe. Honey, I think that to
—-say is in
light. Or whoever. We will
—-never
replace You. We will never re-
—-place You. But
in like a dream the floor is no
—-longer discursive
To me it doesn’t please me by
being the vistas out my
window, do you know what
Of course (not) I mean?
I have no dreams of wake-
—-fulness. In
wakefulness. And so to begin.
—-(my love.)

At night the states
talk. My initial continuing contra-
—-diction
my love for you & that for me
deep down in the Purple Plant the oldest
—-dust
of it is sweetest but sates no longer
—-how I
would feel. Shirt
that shirt has been in your arms
—-And I have
that shirt is how I feel

At night the states
will you continue in this as-
—-sociation of
matters, my Dearest? down
the street from
where the public plaque reminds
that of private
loving the consequential chain
—-trail is
—-matters

At night the states
that it doesn’t matter that I don’t
say them, remember
them at the end of this claustro-
—-phobic the
dance, I wish I could see I wish
—-I could
dance her. At this night the states
—-say them
out there. That I am, am them
indefinitely so and
so wishful passive historic fated
—-and matter-
simple, matter-simple, an
—-eyeful. I wish
but I don’t and little melody.
Sorry that these
little things don’t happen any
—-more. The states
have drained their magicks
—-for I have not
seen them. Best not to tell. But
—-you
you would always remain, I
trust, as I will
always be alone.

At night the states
whistle. Anyone can live. I
can. I am not doing any-
thing doing this. I
discover I love as I figure. Wed-
—-nesday
I wanted to say something in
particular. I have been
where. I have seen it. The God
can. The people
do some more.

At night the states
I let go of, have let, don’t
—-let
Some, and some, in Florida, doing.
What takes you so
long? I am still with you in that
—-part of the
park, and vice will continue, but
—-I’ll have
a cleaning Maine. Who loses
—-these names
loses. I can’t bring it up yet,
—-keeping my
opinions to herself. Everybody in
—-any room is a
smuggler. I walked fiery and
—-talked in the
stars of the automatic weapons
and partly for you
Which you. You know.

At night the states
have told it already. Have
—-told it. I
know it. But more that they
don’t know, I
know it too.

At night the states
whom I do stand before in
—-judgment, I
think that they will find
me fair, not
that they care in fact nor do
I, right now
though indeed I am they and
—-we say
that not that I’ve
—-erred nor
lost my way though perhaps
they did (did
they) and now he is dead
—-but you
you are not. Yet I am this
—-one, lost
again? lost & found by one-
—-self
Who are you to dare sing to me?

At night the states
accompany me while I sit here
—-or drums
there are alwavs drums what for
—-so I
won’t lose my way the name of
—-a
personality, say, not California
—-I am not
sad for you though I could be
—-I remember
climbing up a hill under tall
—-trees
getting home. I guess we
got home. I was
going to say that the air was
—-fair (I was
always saying something like
—-that) but
that’s not it now, and that
that’s not it
isn’t it either

At night the states
dare sing to me they who seem
—-tawdry
any more I’ve not thought I
loved them, only
you it’s you whom I love
the states are not good to me as
I am to them
though perhaps I am not
when I think of your being
so beautiful
but is that your beauty
or could it be
theirs I’m having such a
hard time remembering
any of their names
your being beautiful belongs
to nothing
I don’t believe they should
praise you
but I seem to believe they
—-should
somehow let you go

At night the states
and when you go down to
—-Washington
witness how perfectly anything
in particular
sheets of thoughts what a waste
—-of sheets at
night. I remember something
—-about an
up-to-date theory of time. I
—-have my
own white rose for I have
—-done
something well but I’m not
—-clear
what it is. Weathered, perhaps
—-but that’s
never done. What’s done is
perfection.

At night the states
ride the train to Baltimore
we will try to acknowledge what was
but that’s not the real mirror
—-is it? nor
is it empty, or only my eyes
—-are
Ride the car home from Washington
—-no
they are not. Ride the subway
—-home from
Pennsylvania Station. The states
are blind eyes
stony smooth shut in moon-
light. My
French is the shape of this
—-book
that means I.

At night the states
the 14 pieces. I couldn’t just
walk on by. Why
aren’t they beautiful enough
in a way that does not
beg to wring
something from a dry (wet)
—-something
Call my name

At night the states
making life, not explaining anything
but all the popular songs say call
—-my name
oh call my name, and if I call
it out myself to
you, call mine out instead as our
—-poets do
will you still walk on by? I
—-have
loved you for so long. You
—-died
and on the wind they sang
your name to me
but you said nothing. Yet you
said once before
and there it is, there, but it is
—-so still.
Oh being alone I call out my
—-name
and once you did and do still in
—-a way
you do call out your name
to these states whose way is to walk
on by that’s why I write too much

At night the states
whoever you love that’s who you
—-love
the difference between chaos and
star I believe and
in that difference they believed
—-in some
funny way but that wasn’t
—-what I
I believed that out of this
fatigue would be
born a light, what is fatigue
there is a man whose face
changes continually
but I will never, something
—-I will
never with regard to it or
never regard
I will regard yours tomorrow
I will wear purple will I
and call my name

At night the states
you who are alive, you who are dead
when I love you alone all night and
that is what I do
until I could never write from your
—-being enough
I don’t want that trick of making
it be coaxed from
the words not tonight I want it
—-coaxed from
myself but being not that. But I’d
—-feel more
comfortable about it being words
—-if it
were if that’s what it were for these
—-are the
States where what words are true
—-are words
Not myself. Montana. Illinois.
Escondido.

— Alice Notley

 

 

‘We all know it when we see it, but can we define glare and can we measure it? How do we address it and its control in policies and ordinances? How does it arise? Where do we see it? From what type of installations and sources? When do we see it? How to address it and minimize it? Who to address is and cure it? How to assure it doesn’t arise in future installations? How to retrofit installations to eliminate it or minimize it? Intensity of the source? Local or surrounding contrast with the background?

‘Glare is one of the most obvious forms of economic and environmental waste. We see it every night in the form of bright orange blobs of light in the sky. This light obscures views of the night sky and reduces enjoyment of the wonders of blackness. Research has shown that excessive light at night has a negative biological effect on animals and humans. Glare is easy to identify, but is very complex. For example, what are the different types of glare? Discomfort, disability, annoying, blinding, obtrusive. How does it depend on the locale or lighting zone? By surrounds and background? By source size (arc source or large sources) Dependence on viewers age and eyes?

‘A view of the night is a view of our natural heritage. Dark night skies are a declining resource, threatened by development and the effects of intrusive artificial lighting. To help protect our natural environment we aim to achieve International Dark Sky Reserve status for the entire earth, an award administered by the International Dark Skies Association. Through careful management of artificial lighting the darkness of the night can be protected with benefits to wildlife, people and our natural environment.

‘There is a plethora of reasons to embrace the night sky, not just as a convenient cover for a romance with a spouse, but because of the aesthetics it promotes. Just think about the rich night-inspired contributions of Amadeus Wolfgang Mozart, Vincent van Gogh, or Robert Frost, not to mention Albert Einstein and Edgar Allan Poe. Light pollution is growing at the rate of 4%- far faster than the population. As developing countries embrace the use of electric light, light pollution promises to get even worse. There is a solution!’ — collaged

 

 

‘From the start, the night has had a bad rap. The first words of the West’s great monotheist God were, “Let there be light”. Having found “that it was good”, he “divided the light from the darkness” and named the former day and the latter night. Light was good and dark was bad, and not surprisingly God’s great arch-rival soon became known as The Prince of Darkness.

‘The human race has found many ingenious ways to ward off the night and, by 1829, it started to be drummed out of our cities. The first gas lamps were planted along the Champs-Élysées that year; by the 1870s, electric street lights were placed in Manchester. By coincidence, photography was invented at around the same time, allowing a new breed of artist to “write with light”. Doing so in the dark sounds almost like a contradiction in terms, but the first night photograph quickly appeared.

‘There is something magically seductive about a creative process that is not fully in our control. Much of what happens during night photography is like that. Long exposures, from seconds to hours, make images unpredictable. While the shutter stays open, objects and elements may move at any time, and the Earth is moving all the time relative to the planets and stars. Colour and contrast may shift to reciprocity failure and the idiosyncrasies of particular films and digital systems. Weather systems may vary or change dramatically. Light can appear in many forms and from unseen and multiple directions. Deep shadows invite our curiosity.’ — collaged

 

 

The summer demands and takes away too much
But night, reserved, reticent, gives more than it takes.

– John Ashbery

 

 

*

p.s. Hey. ** David Ehrenstein, Hi. Didn’t realise he was around in NYC back when, but then who wasn’t, I guess. ** Dominik, Hi! Oh, I’m happy you liked it! Yeah, some people are all bent out of shape by the fairytale-like revisionist ending, but that was favorite thing about it. I’m without interesting news on my end too, I think, unless unsuccessful searching for a way to get a Switch delivered and writing emails is more interesting than they sound, ha ha. But today is still young! Maybe we’ll both end up doing something surprisingly amazing. It’s not impossible. Big love from my apartment-shaped cave, me. ** Bill, Hey! I’m happy you liked that film. Beautiful, right? He’s strangely overlooked these days, even by the experimental film channels. I’m pretty sure I do have a Stuart Gordon Day back there somewhere. Not sure if it’s alive or dead. I’ll check. And RIP to him. Ha ha, nice that my little freaked out cigarette hunt suggested fiction. That would be better ending than the real one which found me thanking the tabac employee more profusely than he seemed comfortable with. ** Misanthrope, They let in groups of, oh, 10 or 12 people at a time. No aisle police. Not yet at least. Wow. And no amount limits, happily, since my supermarket is quite a trek from my place so I try to do a week’s stock up when I’m there. But yeah. What new tedious madness will we face today, I wonder. ** Mark Stephens, Well, hello there, Mark, old buddy! Thank you, sir, and I’ve been trying to imagine what your quarantined life might be like now that you LA guys have joined us albeit a wee bit less strictly. I seem to be pretty good. Very slight fear/feeling that I might be slightly getting a slight cold this morning, but these circumstances turn biological mole hills into mountains at a hat’s drop, so I’m not stressing quite yet. Of course J is working from home, right. Happy she’s still working. Concentration is definitely taking a hit. I should be writing an epic novel or something and not digging around in youtube like it’s a thrift store. There is that: empty Paris is very beautiful. And breathing the air is like an oxygen version of sipping from a mountain stream. Love you too, man. I was hoping to get to LA in June and see ‘Made in LA’ and you, but that seems hugely unlikely, so I’m sniping for July now. Take the ultra-best care and give Julie and yourself a Dennis hologram’s hug. ** Jeff J, Thanks, man. You know his films, great. Aren’t they something? And heavily ripe for rediscovery and celebration. That doesn’t ring an immediate bell, no, hm. So you’re finally locked down, eh? I suppose you were pretty ready for that, as much as one can ready oneself. I remember liking ‘Orlando’ pretty well but not hugely? It’s been a while. I think the only other film of hers I’ve seen is ‘Rage’, which I remember thinking was quite awful. You a Potter fan or one in the seeming making? Thanks. Yes, curious to find out what Z, G, and I decide to do today. You have a great one under the circumstances. ** Steve Erickson, I felt like the new Tumor is a possible ‘breakthrough’ album, so maybe Warp is delaying its release until he can tour behind it? Being vegan myself these days and having stayed somewhat sane throughout my quarantine, I think that can only help. Just when you think social media can’t be employed any more insufferably, people find a new way. ** Right. So I was messing around with the blog one day and I ended up making the post you are seeing today. See you tomorrow.

 

‘Frans Zwartjes is arguably Holland’s pre-eminent experimental filmmaker. His highly stylised, poetically claustrophobic films achieve a unique level of sensual intimacy in their renditions of sexual and domestic tension, and voyeurism. Most famous for a prolific series of short films created in the 1960s and ’70s including Spectator (1970) and Living (1971), Zwartjes conjured up oppressively private worlds defined by the compulsions of his heavily made-up, fastidiously dressed (or undressed) performers. These wordless works draw on performance art but are equally distinguished by their oneiric visuals, disconcerting editing rhythms and hypnotically minimal sound design. Their expressively grainy visual textures emerge from uncomfortable close-ups and distorted angles, a transcendentally voyeuristic camera that prowls and clings to the figures it films. Yet this vision seems more engaged with the external projection of inner turmoil than the objectification of bodies and, as such, is imbued with its own unnerving compassion.

‘Although his films are widely available in digital formats, this celebration of Zwartjes’s art is a rare opportunity to see them in their original 16mm format. These films are essentially handmade, homemade objects. He devised and mastered a filmmaking technique every bit as personal as the scenes he filmed. He frequently cast the same performers including his wife Trix, Moniek Toebosch, and even himself. He did the camerawork himself, and his complex, astonishingly assured visual rhythms are the result of cutting in-camera, essentially turning the camera on and off during shooting instead of editing afterwards. He even went as far as to process the films himself to obtain the look he was seeking. Only 16mm projection can do this vision full justice.

‘Zwartjes’s background as a musician is one of his many talents (he is also a painter, sculptor, teacher and violin maker) that is perhaps not mentioned enough. The striking sound design of his films, hypnotically accentuating the prevalent mood of mounting psychosis, is one of their most accomplished features.’ — Maximilian Le Cain

 

____
Stills

 

_____
Further

FRANS ZWARTJES – THE GREAT CINEMA MAGICIAN
Frans Zwartjes @ IMDb
PORTRAIT OF FRANS ZWARTJES
FZ @ MUBI
Frans Zwartjes ‘Masterpiece / Spectator’ (LP)
In Memoriam: Frans Zwartjes
FZ @ letterboxd
FZ @ Cinema of the World
Susan Sontag zag het al: Frans Zwartjes (1927 – 2017) was ‘belangrijkste experimentele filmmaker van zijn tijd’

____
Extras

FRANS ZWARTJES, FILMMAKER

HM2015 Frans Zwartjes

PORTRAIT OF FRANS ZWARTJES

 

_____
Interview
by Mike Hoolboom

 

Q: The person making ordinary films in the Netherlands works within a context: you can see a certain filmmaker as an inspiring model or you can dismiss him to try to do it your own way. Did you have a context like that?

FZ: What made a huge impression on me was the New American Cinema. The municipal theatre in Eindhoven presented a new American film program in the early 1960s. For the first time I was able to see films by Bruce Connor, by Markopolous, by that fatso… Peter Kubelka and by Andy Warhol. I thought: Jeesus Christ, what’s going on! In The Shopper by Warhol, the camera is first pointed at the ceiling and then sinks downwards, but you can feel that it was not done by hand. The bolt at the top of the tripod wasn’t screwed tight. The camera sinks down by itself, splendidly. While the camera keeps on shooting, you can meanwhile hear someone talking. The protagonist just keeps on going. The crazy thing is that I started to be irritated by the film after a little while and I went out to get a drink. I must have gone back and forth ten times and each time that I opened the door to have another look, I thought, damn it all, it’s awfully good! Those screenings had a big influence on me.

Q: You developed your films by yourself in your home laboratory.

FZ: Yeah although… actually it was a cupboard. When I got my first little film back from the laboratory, I thought it looked like garbage. I went back to the lab, that was the NLF back then and said: “I want to develop my own material.” The man opened a drawer and handed me a sheet. I looked at it: R36, Agfa. It had instructions for reversal development. He immediately took hold of one more sheet, one which the address was written of Brocades in Amsterdam. You could buy chemicals there.

He also told me which was the cheapest material: Agfa’s 5-61. That was what they made their prints on. An incredibly straight curve and very, very slow: six ASA. You had to make your shots in the sun in order to be able to see something later on. It came in rolls of three hundred meters. In my darkroom, I cut them up into rolls of 30 meters that would fit in my camera. You get really strange things: perforations on the wrong side, or losing hold of the roll and everything falling apart. Then you’re up shit creek. But I always managed. After a while, I became very skilled at developing. I could develop 300 meters a day. Film on Saturday, watch on Sunday. I had students who asked me how I developed that black-and-white. I explained everything, but they still gave up. Because even if you’ve got instructions you’re not there yet. What’s important is how the material is exposed and how warm it is and how long you leave it in the developer. It’s something you’ve got to twig to. You only learn by doing it, really.

Q: Who did you show your own work to?

FZ: I didn’t know anyone!

Q: Did you not have any contacts with other Dutch filmmakers?

FZ: Of the “regular” filmmakers, only Pim de la Parra came to me and said, “You’ve got to apply for some government money. You shouldn’t be paying for those films yourself, are you out of your mind? I’ll help you.” That didn’t really happen, but still… And Johan van der Keuken. They aced normally. All the rest thought my films were strange, very unprofessional tomfoolery. But they couldn’t escape the fact that Living (1971) was something to reckon with. I heard that later from Bert Haanstra. When I was working at the violin maker, Marree’s studio, he came around. He had been given equipment by The Hague. Given! Lenses and a body and some other things: 35mm equipment. He asked if we would make a case for them. That’s how I came into contact with him. And when later on I started to make a film with a friend about the war wounded in Guinea-Bissau, I looked upper Bert. He immediately said, “Wonderful! A documentary, there’s something we understand at least.” He told me they had wanted to give me the National Prize for Living, but they went and gave it to Ed van der Elsken because he needed money. Ed sold me the Cook lens around that time, the wide-angle that I used so much. Money problems, I guess. It was a 5.7, high quality. I wanted the widest possible angle without it being a fisheye.

Q: There is a great deal of eroticism and there are many distorted power relationships in your films. Do you learn anything about yourself by watching your own films?

FZ: According to Trix, I’ve have never been as clear about myself as I am in my films. But I didn’t not see that at all when I was making them. I didn’t interpret those films. Others did, but what they said was often beside the point. I can still remember a screening – Trix and Monique Toeboesch were sitting on a bench in the film – and you know what someone said to me? “Say, I didn’t know that you wife was a lesbian. How terrible for you!” An adult man said that, a family doctor. I explained: “We’re just making a film, you know.” He acted a bit angry, “Look, you can see it too… Take a look!” I said, “I don’t see anything. I certainly don’t see that.”

I can remember Pentimento (1978) being screened in Rotterdam. The theatre was full of feminists saying I should be done away with. “It should be against the law that ever receive another cent!” And wherever that film was shown, they stormed the projection room in groups of ten, grabbed the projector and pitched it into the street, film and all. That happened a couple of times.

Q: Did that upset you?

FZ: No, something I like a lot less is when, for instance, I expect a really strong effect from a scene an right at that moment I see people leaving the movie theatre… If you don’t see anything at all, and you stand up… that’s… Well, that’s not really irritating but it leave me feeling awfully helpless. It’s just like when someone says, “Well, you know you that Bach’s compositions are just repeating fractions.”

Q: What is your own favourite film?

FZ: In my opinion Spare Bedroom (1970) and Living (1971) have a peculiar indefinable atmosphere. That quirky fidgeting and then the whimpering of the music… When I last saw the film I thought: how did I ever come up with that? I would never be able to do it again now.

 

_________________
11 of Frans Zwartjes’ 45 films

_________________
Sorbet III (1968)
‘A man in drag reaches for some sorbet and then eats it.’ — letterboxd

the entirety

 

_________
Birds (1968)
‘Hypnotic, repetitive film featuring Trix, Zwartjes’ regular partner in crime – and in life. The second ‘turtle dove’ is a piece of a toy between her fingers. Even before Structuralist film had really found its mojo, Zwartjes made this ironic deconstruction of the watch-the-birdie principle.’ — IFFR

the entirety

 

__________
A Fan (1968)
‘A man in drag sits on a couch holding a fan. The wallpaper behind him is floral patterned. Although the man does little more than looking around and waving his fan, Zwartjes created enormous tension.’ — letterboxd

the entirety

 

______________
Visual Training (1969)
‘Oppressive black-and-white study of a man in pale makeup surrendering as apathetically as a zombie from a German Expressionist film to primitive, childlike playing with food. Possibly inspired by Viennese Actionism and the mythopoetic American underground, Zwartjes more than once ventured into orgiastic territory.’ — iffr

the entirety

 

_______________
Spare Bedroom (1969)
‘Two sombre personages who are engaged in a claustrophobic game of attraction and repulsion.’ — MUBI

the entirety

 

______________
Anamnesis (1969)
‘Film in three parts in which a man and a woman, Zwartjes’ regular actors Trix and Lodewijk de Boer, circle around each other, both in the house and outside beside the water, repelling and attracting each other.’ — LUX

the entirety

 

______________
Spectator (1970)
‘This 1970 film from the experimental filmmaker tackled the concept of the image as an object of the ultimate expression of desire.’ — Nowness

the entirety

 

______________
Behind Your Walls (1970)
‘As he does more often, Zwartjes creates an intoxicating, surreal microcosm – this time through a bizarre pantomime featuring extras in heavy make-up. A great example of how the experimental filmmaker was able to unorthodoxly forge colour and black-and-white, silence and an eclectic audio mix into a lyrical poem.’ — iffr

the entirety

 

___________
Living (1971)
‘Frans Zwartjes and his wife explore their new home, and the sexual tension they’ve brought with them to it.’ — letterboxd

the entirety

 

____________
Bedsitters (1974)
‘Bedsitters takes place on the landing and the stairs of Zwartjes’ still-new, empty house in The Hague. The filmmaker evokes a mysterious and complex space by using a ‘floating’ camera to film some creeping and mysterious characters. Even when Zwartjes himself appears in the frame, the camera continues to float. The fluid movements and a substantial wide-angle lens turn the house into a building that defies logic.’ — Eye

the entirety

 

_____________
Pentimento (1979)
‘This film is dominated by an icy blue. In a monumental building a group of scientists submit women to obscure and inhuman experiments, in which sexuality and cruelty constantly merge into one another. When the film was released, this horrifying game of power and powerlessness was condemned severely by a militant group of feminists. The criticism was undeserved. After all, ‘Pentimento’ is an art-historical term for a hidden image underneath the actual image giving an indication of how the latter evolved to its current state. The film does not endorse the lopsided power relations in our world but actually challenges them.’ — The Uncomfort Zone

the entirety

 

 

*

p.s. Hey. ** David Ehrenstein, Hi. I think I’ve seen that Myers/Smith Daley film now that you mention it. Hm. Great that you heard from your friends. What a relief. ** _Black_Acrylic, I so agree with you quite clearly! You and your family look as snug as a bug in a rug, as my grandmother used to say. ** Dominik, Hi! Oh, that’s cool. That the post hit your Dorian Electraized pleasure center. It is a strangely good time for rebirth or rethinking your life or something. It’s lucky timing. When I see and hear so many people just stressing out and feeling terrorised, I feel very lucky to just see it as a hassle. The cyber-meeting with Gisele and Zac got postponed until tomorrow afternoon. The TV project, that script, is absolutely cursed. There’s no other explanation. Which is why I’m very, very wary about continuing it with this feature film idea. But … we’ll see. Nice you’re reading that Blake Butler book. He’s great. I’m reading things but having a heck of a time concentrating on them, so I guess I’m more stressed out than I feel like I am. Cool you’re keeping a journal. I’ve loved the periods when I managed to. I liked the Tarantino. I thought it was a lot of fun. I don’t think it’s his best film or anything, but if you like his stuff in general, I think you’ll enjoy it. My day was okay. I was getting a bit panicky because I was running out cigarettes, and all the tabac shops near me are closed, and yesterday I ventured further away seeking smokes and couldn’t find a single open tabac shop except one in the Gare Austerlitz train station, but the police wouldn’t let me enter the station without a train ticket, and I did start to freak out a bit, but I miraculously finally saw a lit up, triangular red ‘tabac’ sign off in the distance, so I was saved. That is not an exciting story in the slightest, but that’s what passes for excitement in my life at the moment, ha ha. How did your four walls and brother and notebook and screen and etc. entertain you today? ** Steve Erickson, Hi. Weird, the DE timing. Last night I would have been seeing Lee “Scratch” Perry live for the first time in my life, and tonight I would have been seeing Yves Tumor live also for the first time in my life. Grr. Everyone, God knows you need things to fill your time, and here’s a gilded opportunity aka Mr. Erickson reviewing Zebra Katz’s debut album LESS IS MOOR right about here. ** Misanthrope, I know all about something weird in the brain. High gloved five. As I told Dominick, I spent part of yesterday desperately seeking smokes and finally scored a carton, and it felt like winning the lottery. We have lines outside markets but sparsely populated interiors and totally full shelves. Very best wishes to your friend and her family. And to you and yours, duh. ** Bill, I think that Coil box is going for a King’s ransom these days. When and, ugh, if they reopen the bookstores, your scenario will likely be the scenario for a long, long time. Pivoting is a blessing. Usually. Very cool. Yes, please do let me know where and how I can watch your gig glitch-free when it’s time. As happy a Wednesday to you as the imaginary man upstairs can allow. ** Okay. If you don’t know the beautiful films of Frans Zwartjes you are in for a great time around here today. See you tomorrow.