17 reviews
I'm beginning to see the light
It's rather tricky to rate and review a 4 minute film but I'm gonna try anyway. From the very beginning so called "experimental film" has dealt with the material of the film as such and there is a whole tradition of films made without the help of a camera. You can scribble on it, you can scratch it or as it was done here, you can glue two dimensional and transparent objects to it, then sandwich the negative onto it and let it run past a light source in order to expose it. Some people still think that film depicts reality, whereas all it really does is depict a reproduction of reality. But surely there must be another reality than what Hollywood is trying to sell us and Brakhage's approach is as simple as it is beautiful. In Mothlight wings of insects and thin leaves flutter over the screen and since each frame has no relation to it's preceding image, the outcome is rather fidgety. However, if you relax and stay focused at the same time you will realise that watching Mothlight is like staring at a bright light that is surrounded by moths. When I watched it for the first time, I thought the effect was rather impressive. You might argue that you don't go to the movies to watch moths flutter around bright lights but there is so much more to it. Experimantal film has always questioned our way of perceiving the world and Mothlight is no exception. Only it's also very beautiful and thus very entertaining.
- mheuermann
- Jan 31, 2006
- Permalink
Lights ... Action
I've just watched 'Mothlight (1963)' - my first film from the Stan Brakhage - twice in a row, and I'm no closer to working it out. Experimental filmmakers usually have some purpose in mind with their work, some aesthetic or thematic goal to which they are aspiring. What the case may be with 'Mothlight' is beyond me. I've heard some critics venture that it represents the world as experienced through a moth's eyes, but how this is achieved by gluing plants and dead insects onto celluloid is another matter. Certainly the most interesting facet of this four-minute short is that it was produced entirely without a camera, Brakhage having attached the organic fragments directly to the filmstrip. Is there beauty in these images? To a certain degree, I think, but each frame darts by so incredibly quickly that its difficult to appreciate what you are seeing. Every jarring movement is like being awakened from a dream, several times a second, such that you end up not getting any dreaming done at all.
I've probably committed a mortal sin by adding music to a film that is presumably supposed to be silent, but I thought that Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" actually brought an agreeable rhythm to the continuous stream of shifting images. This result, now that I think of it, is probably the antithesis of what Brakhage had intended, for, viewed alone, his animation (which effectively re-animates the dead, as one author put it) has a jarring feel about it, as though you're driving and insects keep splatting against your windscreen, bringing your vehicle to a standstill at every jolt. Film is a medium that relies upon light for its existence, and its light-created images often have the power to captivate and entrance us just as a moth is drawn instinctively towards the glow of a lantern. In a way, I suppose, it is the audience that is the moth in this case, seated in the darkness, our attention lured towards the images of light on the cinema screen. Heck, I already feel like I'm reading too far into it.
I've probably committed a mortal sin by adding music to a film that is presumably supposed to be silent, but I thought that Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" actually brought an agreeable rhythm to the continuous stream of shifting images. This result, now that I think of it, is probably the antithesis of what Brakhage had intended, for, viewed alone, his animation (which effectively re-animates the dead, as one author put it) has a jarring feel about it, as though you're driving and insects keep splatting against your windscreen, bringing your vehicle to a standstill at every jolt. Film is a medium that relies upon light for its existence, and its light-created images often have the power to captivate and entrance us just as a moth is drawn instinctively towards the glow of a lantern. In a way, I suppose, it is the audience that is the moth in this case, seated in the darkness, our attention lured towards the images of light on the cinema screen. Heck, I already feel like I'm reading too far into it.
Good Idea/Colorful but Dull
We see the world through butterfly wings. Every millisecond another colorful wing passes before us. It isn't long before we want to go outside and get some fresh air. It's just not that interesting because there is no real center.
a short movie without the use of a camera
No camera was used to make this dazzling short movie: legs, wings and other parts of butterflies were glued directly on the filmstrip, thus creating a shifting pattern of unsurpassed beauty. The way Brakhage extents the possibilities of his medium is typical of 1960's experimental film-making.
One of Brakhage's most famous
- Horst_In_Translation
- Sep 28, 2013
- Permalink
Gluing the World on a Film Strip
Brakhage was intimate with his camera and with the world seen by his camera from the very beginning. And from a certain moment on he felt the camera was of no more use between him and the world. He started to put the world directly on the film, either by painting it, scratching it, or by physically gluing the world there, like in this 4 minute movie from 1963, Mothlight. It could sound crazy to you, but Brakhage collected patiently hundreds of moth wings from the inside of lamps and windows, added parts of leaves and other detritus and sandwiched them between two filmstrips. The outcome was the life of a moth, from birth to death: a dance of patterns on the wings, of psychedelic beauty. The world of butterflies, as seen by the light bulb; or the fascination in the eyes of butterflies deadly attracted by the light bulb; or the fascination of us in watching the screen.
You could ask, is this the real world? Of course not, this is the world created by the imagination of Brakhage. An artist creates universes on his own, he is some kind of God (or Frankenstein, matter of perspective), and the only criteria for us to judge should be the consistency of the world we see on the screen, on the canvas, in a book (or the world we listen to when in a concert hall).
You could ask, is this the real world? Of course not, this is the world created by the imagination of Brakhage. An artist creates universes on his own, he is some kind of God (or Frankenstein, matter of perspective), and the only criteria for us to judge should be the consistency of the world we see on the screen, on the canvas, in a book (or the world we listen to when in a concert hall).
- p_radulescu
- Jan 14, 2011
- Permalink
...wow...
Finding Brakhage was an accident, but when I did stumble upon his world, I shut the door to the "Hollywood" world, and I sat down in the dark, to watch Brakhage. MOTHLIGHT was the first one I saw, and MOTHLIGHT was all I needed to see in the beginning before I wanted to get into experimental film. It traps you and doesn't let you go. Those who have seen it, know what I'm talking about. It's something amazing, and something everyone needs to experience at least once. **** four stars.
- Douglass29
- Mar 16, 2003
- Permalink
Scrapbooking for Film Makers...
I tend to share the same sentiments as the commenter who saw Mothlight for a film studies class. I, too, watched it in my film studies course and while it was neat to think that he actually pasted leaves and wings onto the celluloid, it made me dizzy. Through discussion in my class, I learned that this was supposed to make me see these objects in a way I never have or maybe ever would again. But, all I saw was the meshing of blades of grass and moth wings. While some may see this as highly artistic, I really cannot. It's like paying for a tour of the art museum and being shown a white canvas with a red dot on it. I believe art takes true talent, and I can't help but wonder how many fourth graders could have a scavenger hunt outside and then cut and paste what they find onto strips of film. If you can find deep meanings and revelations in rapid images, then you would probably like this film. But, for those who see art (especially film art) as an avenue for conveying a message rather than leaving open interpretation for confused audience members, you may just want to watch it for visual stimulation if you watch it at all.
textures
Brakhage made this piece by physically placing moth wings and other things to white leader and fixing them in place with splicing tape. interesting to watch this because it reminds us how trained we are to look for narrative and pattern in everything we see. i found myself searching for redundancies, trying to "figure out" what was going on. I then allowed myself to just sit back and let myself be transported by the material. Made me feel like I'ma little insect zipping through the grass in a field. Like Brakhage's other works, it is very much a collage projected versus what we traditionally call a film. Not unlike more static visual arts like painting and photography where we allow ourselves to get to the meaning alone as opposed to being given the meaning by the author.
Winging it.
Stan Brakhage presents us with some hermetically sealed imagery in this "scrapic" that he made by taping particles onto celluloid. He gets an A for audacity and imagination but the follow through is more accessible than his abstract work with firmly identifiable objects and bereft of the more nebulous nature to be found in more challenging works such as his anemic preludes where if you've seen one you've seen them all. Akin to having a file drawer of x-rays falling on you.
True "Art"
The comments already listed for this film are perfect, but I just wanted to add is that this isn't so much a film as much as it is functional art. If the definition of "art film" can roughly be put as anything on film that breaks the traditional Hollywood narrative (clearly defined protagonist with clear-cut goals and every scene of the film relating to the obtaining of / confinement of those goals), then this film is pretty much the benchmark for how broad that definition is. Not exactly a "must see," but important because it gives us language with which to talk about "art film" in general.
This changed my very perception of what cinema can be.
- zachgriffiths-57958
- Mar 16, 2019
- Permalink
Did not resonate with me
I got into watching experimental films of Michael Snow and really got into his weird story-less but pace driven films. Decided to watch this over some of Brakhage, which I think his peer AND I am not ready to watch his Morgue film yet again so decided to watch this defiantly shorter film.
I always forget that I watch this. Its literally a clip of Moth (and related object) pasted on a film per frame. I personally feel a bit unenthused really watching it. I guess I wish there was something that can make feel or think about. Its pretty random at that. Not much pattern, just a 'thematic' stuff. Its practically throwing stick and seeing what sticks on the screen.
Not my thing.
I always forget that I watch this. Its literally a clip of Moth (and related object) pasted on a film per frame. I personally feel a bit unenthused really watching it. I guess I wish there was something that can make feel or think about. Its pretty random at that. Not much pattern, just a 'thematic' stuff. Its practically throwing stick and seeing what sticks on the screen.
Not my thing.
- akoaytao1234
- Jun 30, 2024
- Permalink
Buggy editing
According to someone else on here this was made without a camera - Brakhage took pieces of moths, their wings, parts, and through how the light of the projector itself casts it we see all of the movements going by (albeit the editing is all Brakhage and how he chooses the "shots", however that went). In that sense it's simply a unique piece of cinema that literally, not as a figure of speech, changes the form of the medium. Of course there's no story, and how could there be, but as a collage of images it's extraordinary.
Perhaps there could be a way to make these four minutes into something that wouldn't be compelling (maybe if there was too much white space on the film-strips, again the film strips are still cut together so there's a process there in the fully artistic sense not unlike Jackson Pollock sprinkling paint around to make an effect). I can't think of it off the top of my head; the fact that it's using nature itself seems like some sort of subliminal comment about how to really appreciate things we need to look at them, ALL of them, and digest the images later.
Perhaps there could be a way to make these four minutes into something that wouldn't be compelling (maybe if there was too much white space on the film-strips, again the film strips are still cut together so there's a process there in the fully artistic sense not unlike Jackson Pollock sprinkling paint around to make an effect). I can't think of it off the top of my head; the fact that it's using nature itself seems like some sort of subliminal comment about how to really appreciate things we need to look at them, ALL of them, and digest the images later.
- Quinoa1984
- May 2, 2016
- Permalink
A Wild Ride
- joshuahaskell
- Mar 16, 2019
- Permalink
Good
Mothlight (1968)
*** (out of 4)
Here's a director I had never heard of until reading some of Martin's reviews so I did a little searching and came across this film, which is a strange one to say the least and even after watching it I had to read other reviews just to understand what I had seen. From what I gathered, the director didn't use a camera but instead used parts of a butterfly, taped them to a film strip and that's the entire movie. The film runs just under three minutes and we see all sorts of strange things that my writing talent wouldn't allow me to do justice to. Since this was my first film by the director I can't say I totally understood what he was trying to do but I enjoyed what I was watching. The various images, shapes and creations the director comes up with was very entertaining.
*** (out of 4)
Here's a director I had never heard of until reading some of Martin's reviews so I did a little searching and came across this film, which is a strange one to say the least and even after watching it I had to read other reviews just to understand what I had seen. From what I gathered, the director didn't use a camera but instead used parts of a butterfly, taped them to a film strip and that's the entire movie. The film runs just under three minutes and we see all sorts of strange things that my writing talent wouldn't allow me to do justice to. Since this was my first film by the director I can't say I totally understood what he was trying to do but I enjoyed what I was watching. The various images, shapes and creations the director comes up with was very entertaining.
- Michael_Elliott
- Jul 8, 2008
- Permalink
Changed My Life Forever
When I just started watching this movie, I only had two balls, one of them defunct. However, while the movie played, my balls started undergoing a cloning process just like the cells of the moth wings that I could definitely see due to the EXPERT videography.
Edit: I just found out from my doctor when I did my last physical that I have testicular cancer and that the ball I thought I developed is actually a HUGE FKING tumor. Apparently the doctor said it was "inoperable" and that "he was sorry". Well, the only person he should be sorry for is himself for missing out on watching this masterpiece of a movie.
Edit 2: I was just informed that I was in "Stage 3" now, which is a good thing right? I heard that that is usually the last stage that cancer patients try to beat. In the meantime, this movie has endless room for interpretation that I can transform into my 1000 page book "Mothlight, Testicular Cancer, and Me: How I fell in love with pieces of dead-moth wings, dirt, and roots"
Edit: I just found out from my doctor when I did my last physical that I have testicular cancer and that the ball I thought I developed is actually a HUGE FKING tumor. Apparently the doctor said it was "inoperable" and that "he was sorry". Well, the only person he should be sorry for is himself for missing out on watching this masterpiece of a movie.
Edit 2: I was just informed that I was in "Stage 3" now, which is a good thing right? I heard that that is usually the last stage that cancer patients try to beat. In the meantime, this movie has endless room for interpretation that I can transform into my 1000 page book "Mothlight, Testicular Cancer, and Me: How I fell in love with pieces of dead-moth wings, dirt, and roots"
- frankdai-22379
- Sep 19, 2023
- Permalink