Experimental Film (1960-2000) - An Introduction

Defining experimental film can be tricky, though it is often useful to see experimental films as breaking the norms or conventions that have become so familiar to us as a result of the diet of mainstream Hollywood films we consume. Think of the ways in which films classified as experimental CHALLENGE spectators; how are they unusual, strange or distancing compared to the films you are used to seeing? Mainstream films are often described as conventional, whereas experimental films frequently break these familiar conventions. The best thing to do is to consider how experimental films, such as Pulp Fiction, appear to be unconventional.

It is not that as viewers we never witness experimentation within Hollywood - Hollywood filmmakers often experiment with new technologies, for example, in the service of a big-budget commercial movie (think Steven Spielberg with Jurassic Park, the Wachowski Brothers with the Matrix, Christopher Nolan with Inception or, more recently, Martin Scorsese with Hugo or The Irishman and Sam Mendes with 1917) - it is just that we usually associate experimentation with something other than what is traditionally mainstream. What we see (or hear) in experimental film is likely to feel unusual to us. There are many reasons for this including:

• the dominance of Hollywood and mainstream films in cinemas and on TV
• your lack of exposure to experimental films
• a lack of publicity and marketing of experimental films
• preferential treatment in the press for mainstream, narrative films
• a perception of experimental films as 'difficult' and therefore potentially unprofitable

This may take the form of experimentation with style and aesthetic (how does Pulp Fiction look and feel different), or experiments with aspects of film form, such as cinematography, sound or editing (how are some of the film techniques used in Pulp Fiction different from what you may expect to find in mainstream cinema) or even a reflection of wider cultural experimentation within society. For our purposes, however, particularly because we are studying Pulp Fiction, you may decide to focus your discussion of experimental film to the film's narrative - it is likely (though not certain) that one of the questions in the exam will be on this Specialist Study Area. Here, you can discuss the order and frequency of the presentation of story events in the plot, resolution (or lack of it) at the end of the film and the ways in which characters are presented (who are the protagonists and antagonists, for example, and are they presented in conventional ways?).

Pulp Fiction has a distinctive and 'experimental' approach to film storytelling - which will be covered in much more detail on the narrative post on the Pulp Fiction blog (Specialist Study Area 1: Narrative and Pulp Fiction) - which challenges the spectator with its narrative approach because it refuses to confirm the assumptions and satisfy the expectations we normally bring to our film viewing. The fractured, non-linear, narrative structure, which (through a radical dislocation of plot and story) places scenes out of chronological order and shows certain sequences multiple times from different vantage points, experiments with the audience's understanding of conventional narrative structure.

In experimenting with narrative it is inevitable that key areas of film form such as editing, sound and mise-en-scene will become key means by which the experiment with narrative is developed. It is likely, therefore, that any question on areas of cinematography, mise-en-scene, sound, editing and even performance, will be related to the film's experimentation with narrative. It is also likely that any questions on film language will focus on the ways that the use of cinematography, mise-en-scene, sound, editing and performance can be considered to be experimental. Any discussion of Pulp Fiction as an experimental film will certainly include analysis of manipulation of film form (such as long takes, particularly when close ups are used) and the ways that attention is drawn to the stylistic devices used by Tarantino (part of his auteur signature), alongside the experimental nature of the narrative structure.

It may be worth considering the filmmakers' reasons for experimenting with film language or narrative. Often a filmmaker may simply want to break free from convention and refuse to conform to the 'rule-book' approach so common in the kinds of films that dominate the multiplexes; Tarantino is often described as a 'rebel', a 'maverick' and an 'outsider'. Alternatively, the experiment may be a result of institutional context, such as a budgetary restriction or developments in new forms of technology that enable the filmmaker to push the boundaries of convention. These experiments may, even, be politically motivated, forcing an 'active' reaction from the spectator, provoking or challenging the spectator (something that mainstream films, produced within the Hollywood system, rarely tend to do).

Experimental films may simply reflect broader experimental cultural movements found within society at the time the film is made, such as expressionism, surrealism or postmodernism, which often reflect a 'turn' in culture, or a new sensibility. The last of these movements, postmodernism, is particularly relevant to Pulp Fiction - which we will look at in more detail in a specific post on the Pulp Fiction blog (Pulp Fiction and Experimental Film: Postmodernism).

Postmodernism is a tricky concept but, thankfully, there is no need for you to have a detailed understanding of the origins of postmodernism, or a complex understanding of it as a concept. You only need to understand postmodernism in terms of how it relates to cinema, and how Pulp Fiction as a film displays postmodern characteristics. It is best to start by thinking of the ways in which Pulp Fiction subverts many of the conventions of mainstream cinema. Even better, is to consider how the film rejects conventions of what is sometimes described as modernist cinema; films that strive for realism, showing recognisable characters in realistic situations. In a nutshell, postmodernism (in relation to film) playfully, ironically and, often, cynically, looks at the modern world as we know and understand it and calls into question the nature of 'reality'. Postmodern films frequently emphasise the constructed nature of the images and sounds we see and hear on screen. Tarantino's Pulp Fiction, with its cartoonish two-dimensional, rather than realistic, characters and its foregrounding of style and surface over any more solid sense of reality, displays many characteristics of postmodernism.

Postmodernism is often described as 'playful', with films mixing genres, cleverly referencing other films or aspects of pop culture and presenting themselves as 'artificial' rather than a representation of reality; in this sense, Pulp Fiction can be described as self-reflexive; it knows that it is a film and frequently refers to its own artificiality. Pulp Fiction has a strong auteur signature and Tarantino is among the most celebrated exponents of postmodern cinema. Pulp Fiction most definitely 'plays' with film form and narrative in a mischievous, comical and light-hearted way.

It is likely that you will want to relate Pulp Fiction as an experimental film to the concept of Tarantino as an auteur. Directors of experimental films are likely to have a high degree of control over the film (a pre-requisite in the definition of auteur, as someone who works free from the constraints of a major studio) with the films they make clearly reflecting their own personal vision (rather than the vision of the company producing the film). Auteurs arguably have more freedom and this, in turn, allows for more experimentation. Put simply, an auteur is a filmmaker with a particular trademark (or trademarks) or personal vision that is evident across their body of films. One trademark of Tarantino's films is certainly his experimentation with both conventional ideas relating to film form and conventional ideas relating to narrative.

Tarantino has almost exclusively worked outside of the Hollywood studio system (firstly with Miramax and then with the Weinstein Company), and you may want to argue that this has given him the opportunity of more freedom to experiment as an auteur. There are obvious budgetary constraints making films without the financial support of a major studio, but it is often these constraints which encourage more experimental filmmaking, in particular a more realist mode of filmmaking, using handheld cameras, real locations and natural lighting.

It is certainly possible for a modern viewer to argue that a film such as Pulp Fiction does not feel particularly experimental, largely because its cinematic experimentation has been very quickly absorbed into mainstream filmmaking (Pulp Fiction spawned numerous copycat films throughout the 1990s and beyond, as studios and filmmakers tried to mirror the film's success through copying its style). Nevertheless, with the specification's focus on experimentation in relation to narrative, Pulp Fiction appears to be an ideal movie to discuss for experimental film. Just make sure that you focus on the ways that Pulp Fiction experiments with the way it tells its story, discussing how this manipulation by Tarantino makes for a fresh and engaging experience.