Very curious what you all would say, and don't want to mention my examples and load up the sample size.

Mind you, that still wasn't as bad as sitting through a Derek Jarman movie.. 

No film that I have ever been to, has ever sent as many folks away as "I Stand Alone" by Gaspar Noe ... when the theater probably ended with about 100 folks in the audience by the end. It was an incredibly difficult film to see on a big screen ... in a video, you can get up go get some coffee and turn it down, or whatever, but in the theater, those gun shots out of nowhere, and some really insane parts, really take you out. It's not the only film he has done, that has some rather difficult parts, "Irreversible" also has a rape that is insane, even though you know the actors are actually married. And, in "Enter The Void", just before it does its own take on 2001, the film goes off its rocker, with the siblings.

From a creative aspect, the films are ... totally insane, but the ideas presented are kinda backwards for you and I which makes things really difficult. I'm not sure there are too many other films that stand up to these films ... way to far out there, and sometimes, I wonder what the whole art is all about ... 

Difficult, but not always an issue for me, is Peter Greenaway ... and his insane work with nudity that just won't stop ... and by the time that you see "Not Mozart", the one thing you're going to say is the guy is insane, plain and simple! I kinda call it the Bob Fosse show that he could not do anywhere in America, but did not try Paris or Berlin! And the ending of "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover" is one for the books, but really, a fair and with it thing within the story. The film's greatness is also that Hellen Mirren and Michael Gambon are incredible all the way through it. Likewise, when you see "Prospero's Books" which is a kind of modern take on Shakespeare that most folks don't want to see, there is also a bit too much nudity in it, when/where it might not be necessary, and I have never exactly cleared that part up here. And then, you see "Nightwatching" and find out that Peter Greenaway is the greatest Rembrandt scholar of all. And you go ... now what?

Derek Jarman deserved better, but he had no budget in his films, and had to make do, and there are some things that are far out, though totally off kilter. In the "Caravaggio" film, all of a sudden seeing someone typing away the story, is ... what the heck? ... but it is funny and far out, and not exactly out of line. In some other films, his work is not what/where we would want them to be or prefer them to be (it should be said) with a gay Edward II ... which a lot of folks really trashed and in the story and play, it makes a lot of sense and is better in this idea and rendition!

Visionaries are tough ... and Derek Jarman was one of them, but not having a budget to do anything was a serious problem that really hurt a lot of what he did, but he made some things work ... right or wrong.

Andy Warhol, is not, an "artist" or a film maker ... he is a commercial stooge that found a trick that worked and he made millions off it. Very NY kind of thing! His "films" were just a turn the camera on and let's make believe. And like "Sleep" ... it deserves to be trashed and not mentioned, but it has a famous name attached to it! We just never learn, do we?

Even in several Film Festivals, I'm not sure I could mention anything more ... sometimes I want to say that a couple of films by Pedro Almodovar are a bad excuse for a film, but he was the darling of the wine and kiss folks in Portland, and all the parties ended up being private and only the invited could go. He manages to make a "story", though sometimes you just want to throw it at the wall to see if it sticks!

I wanted to mention Alejandro Jodorowsky, but in all honesty I do not find him offensive, though some folks banned him in Mexico City for his theater actors having sex on stage. I think he slims that down in his films, but sometimes, you get the feeling that a lot of it was cut down ... so it could be released, and this makes for his films having a very tough and ugly bunch of cuts, that tend to hurt the story board, and you wonder what the sense of it is ... I'm not sure it is supposed to have any sense! But I have to admit I wanted to see these things without the cuts. But I doubt we will ever see any of these things redone and cleaned up! 

One film maker that was really tough, but had an incredible listing of experimental works, is Peter Brook.

Starting early with a Shakespeare in a child's playground, everyone asked what this was supposedly all about, but the performances came off really good, and though in the film it did not come off as well, on the stage it probably was much more valuable of an experience.

He didn't stop there ... did an incredible "Lord of the Flies" where the children actually ran the whole thing, and supposedly were not given a lot of direction ... which kids generally are not good at taking anyway, and I don't think many of them would understand it within a film/theater language kind of thing.

His experiments continued. 

Marat/Sade was a play within a play, and it is, by very far, one of the most incredible acting chops of theater that most of us can ever enjoy ... it is best to not see the film, since it is a theatrical rendition filmed, and it didn't work as well, but, all yo got to do here, is turn off the video and just listen to the words ... the story flies so hard, so beautifully and so neat, that you wonder how and why more folks did not appreciate the way it was done. Ian Richardson and Patrick Magee were phenomenal here, and I doubt that too many folks in America will ever appreciate this ... not enough Hollywood in it!

More experiments. 

The Mahabharata featured actors from a lot of different countries and they could not even speak with each other, but you never saw a production where this was not an issue ... and is part of the story that defines a lot of Peter Brook's work as the physical side which has to communicate what the words are saying, and you find that sometimes, you can move and the words are just spice on top of it. Not many directors EVER got to work with actors that well and strongly.

One film, by his son, THE TIGHTROPE, shows him working with some actors in a very simple exercise ... that is really difficult to work on and with. If you appreciate the art form of acting, this is fascinating, and hearing the actors talk about it later is something that is really rare.

(Sorry ... this is as much as I can come up with right now ... I'll look at my listing of 600 films and see if I need to add some more, as there are some things I wanted to mention (Pasolini anyone?) but passed on it for now. I might consider Peckinpah)

Hi,

And you missed the point in Warhol's film? Just like all of his work ... THERE IS NO POINT! ... But we think it is supposed to be some far out artistic crap!

Derek Jarman, sadly enough, deserves more, and Ken Russell's film THE DEVILS, would not be as stunning and strong, without Derek Jarman's assist and help ... and it is just sad that he could not get any help on his own work, and some of it is crazy and weird, even including seeing EDWARD II as gay, which makes really good sense, if you read the play, but doesn't translate well to our ideas of what the Marlowe/Shakespeare time as about.

I'm not sure that Derek created some stuff for it to be "meaningful" and the biggest deception, is us thinking that all films and theater we see has to be with a purpose and definition that we ... somehow ... agree to, or we will not see it.

If you listen to Toyah and others talk about Derek Jarman, they say some nifty things about him and his creativity, and it becomes quickly apparent that he had no budget for just about all his films, which was really sad, even as you can tell that some moments of several films are bad, blurry and scratchy, often a sign of left over film stock ... Wim Wenders went along with it, so did Werner Herzog and many other film makers in their earlier days ... and many times it does not hurt the work because it still comes out as neat and interesting. It never really hurt Godard, Truffaut or Rivette ... probably because they were getting paid from their writing and the French folks had an artistic collective in their government (not there anymore I don't think!) that helped a lot of film make it through ... compare that to America, where since the Reagan administration all moneys have been removed for the arts, because they are/were too liberal for the republicans ... and the current person says it loud and clear about the taking over of the Smithsonian and the grand concert hall and house.

And we ignore it! That's the part that hurts ... our children are becoming just another brick in the wall for another war down the line! What else is new, right?