The analogy of classical narrative style to capitalism and other alternative styles as Marxist/Anarchist/other is flawed as I'm not sure alternatives ways of living (other than capitalism) are dependent on capital as are ways of seeing anarchist cinema (whatever that means as form) as dependent on the creation of the Hollywood system.
Even Godard conceded every film must have a beginning, middle, and end, just not in that order. Even *Wavelength* (Snow, 1967) has a beginning. Temporal, not narrative, but it still it begins and ends. So I'm would think true anarchy in film would be in experimental, not the narrative structures.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:11 AM, magcomm <magcomm at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > I'd prefer a list that was about anarchist form rather than content . .
> . So, early and late Bunuel, Fassbinder's melodramas, early Almovador, etc.
>
> How would you define anarchist form?
>
> My initial thought would be that if we take Fassbinder's notion that he
> wanted his films to "liberate the mind" (which he believed the films of
> Douglas Sirk did), then Douglas Sirk could be added to your list and even,
> I would argue, George Cukor and Alfred Hitchcock. Certainly, all three
> liberated the aesthetic forms of Hollywood cinema (whereas other directors
> such as Vincente Minnelli or Nicholas Ray could be understood to expand the
> capacity of the aesthetic forms of Hollywood cinema without liberating it).
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- J.A. Masko College of Communications Penn State University State College, Pa 16801
"The challenge of modernity is to live without illusions and without becoming disillusioned."
Antonio Gramsci.
---
"Earth People, New York and California
Earth People, I was born on Jupiter."
Dr Octogon