Paper #1

PAPER ONE: THE CREATIVE ACT
the spectator and the filmmaker in ‘the bear garden’


“All in all, the creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualification and thus adds his contribution to the creative act.”
– Marcel Duchamp, the Creative Act, 1957

This quote can really be applied to any art form, as long as it requires spectatorship of some sort. In this case, applying Duchamp’s to film really depends on what the spectator takes from what they see and what the filmmaker chooses to show to the spectator. In examining Andrea Leuteneker’s The Bear Garden, an interesting thought process occurs. In its entirety, this film is a visual and sonic assault of many images that conjure up various and different feelings depending on the viewer.
Firstly, with the title The Bear Garden, the filmmaker is immediately putting an idea or an image into the viewer’s mind (assuming the viewer knows what a ‘bear garden’ is or was). Anyway, when seeing this title, one might think the film is trying to symbolize or represent the experience of a bear in one of these ‘gardens’ through the images on screen. Maybe this is what the filmmaker intended, how could anyone really know without directly speaking with her? However, I think that other meanings can be drawn from this film. It’s very possible the filmmaker wanted to obscure this and make it slightly confusing. One thing that the filmmaker does not give us is any dialogue that might clear up what the film is about. The viewer is left simply to work on his or her own to try and decipher the meaning. In this sense, by not making it clear at all what this film is about, Leuteneker is directly inviting the audience into the creative act. If any viewer wants to have an idea of comprehending this film, he or she must attempt to interpret the striking imagery given. The beginning of the film gives the viewer a lush field of flowers accompanied by ominous clanging bells (it’s almost like a toll of death). I personally don’t think that this film is supposed to show mentally what a ‘garden’ does to a bear. It shouldn’t be taken literally like that. Instead, the title seems to provide an initial feeling of darkness or perhaps despair. When it’s all said and done, this film does go through a dark and somewhat violent journey. After the field of flowers, the audience slowly descends downward – first through the earth into a cavern of sorts and then eventually into a daunting abyss below. What follows is an overwhelming and terrifying onslaught of abstract images dominated by blacks and reds. On top of the images, there is constant noise – a various mash-up of eerie ambient sounds and others that I couldn’t even identify. Overall, the combination of these two is unsettling. I think that the filmmaker uses the above techniques to try and prompt the audience and elicit a certain response from them. To me, the film takes the audience on a trip into hell. The rapidly projected images conjure up ideas of fire, blood, and pain. The entire middle section of this was abstract juxtaposed on more abstract. Yet, this was incredibly effective. I was more or less on the edge of my seat for most of the film. The filmmaker is challenging the viewer to brave through this hellish portion just as the film itself is – once the viewer makes it through, the film calms quite drastically. The images still remain dark, but most of the menacing red color and the disturbing sounds are gone. I feel like the film ends in a sort of purgatory. Once it has dragged the audience through the deepest pit of hell, it sort of leaves them to ponder in an empty room. The ending of the film could equal solace, but it also has a kind of loneliness to it. The important part of this is the space and ability to ponder what has just happened. The filmmaker intentionally made a film that shocks the viewer with intense imagery and ends with reflection time. It’s important because we the viewers have to consider what the message or ultimate meaning of The Bear Garden is.
There aren’t a whole lot of gaps in this film. However, the images that are strung together are just abstract enough to make it difficult to know exactly what the filmmaker is saying with this piece. The film then becomes a good candidate for applying Duchamp’s ideas. The Bear Garden definitely benefits from having the viewer add his or her interpretation. The film doesn’t directly lead to any distinct conclusions, but it does permit the audience to derive their own conclusion. A film like this could be very hard to elicit meaning from if it weren’t for the memorable imagery that it provides. It is absolutely through these images that the filmmaker hopes or even expects the viewer to interact with and understand the film.