Rose Hobart
If I were to characterise Rose Hobart as anything, I would suggest that it is a film by Joseph Cornell, about Joseph Cornell.
It has been suggested in class that this film is the first fan video. That Rose Hobart fits into that genre which is, essentially, the re-editing of a film to create an homage to a single character or characters within it, or in fact, the actors that play those characters. It has also been suggested that Cornell is thereby creating a commentary on the institution of the star system in Hollywood. The footage of the film is almost entirely taken up with images of Hobart. It has been given a dream like atmosphere through the use of the blue tinting, the pacing of the editing, the repetition of specific imagery like the volcano, and the strangeness of the jazz soundtrack. It can be concluded from this that the film reflects Cornell’s obsession with Rose Hobart on an unconscious level.
To follow this further towards the issue of the star system, I would suggest that the film offers two ideas. One, it shows that the bulk of a film can be ignored purely on fascination for a single person within it, and two, that that fascination functions on an irrational level of the human psyche.
If Cornell’s aim was to use this social phenomenon of ‘stars’ as his subject for the film, then he has wasted his twenty minutes. Those two insights are not profound. It is the consequences of those insights that are actually of interest for an analysis of the star system. What does it mean for the process of film watching, that we care only for a single actor? How does it determine our understanding of a film to have a known entity (i.e, a star) assuming a role within it, as opposed to a completely new face for each character? And so on.
Instead, it appears that the true interest of Rose Hobart is its attempt to recreate Cornell’s own unconscious fascination with Hobart herself on celluloid. It is an experiment in recreating the unconscious on film.
This is why I don’t like Rose Hobart. It is a work of art that holds absolutely no interest for me. I am not interested in Joseph Cornell’s unconscious. Perhaps if I were stalking a celebrity, it would be easier to relate to. But I am not. Why is that a reasonable objection, you might then ask. It is of interest to someone else, therefore it is valid. Perhaps. But if it is going to be so intellectually restricted; that is, of interest to such a specific group and of no interest to anyone else, it cannot rank highly on my list of good art. It is deliberately obscure. It is deliberately obscure because the unconscious is by nature obscure. Moreover, it has absolutely no intrinsic beauty to it; it is a recutting and recolouring of someone else’s work, with new irritating music added.
The purpose of this class is not to review or place value judgments, I suppose, but as it may be of some incidental use in judging my analysis of the film, I’d give it half a star.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
strange that you say this is a film devoid of beauty, when it's exclusive focus is on an actress noted for her beauty! apart from issues with obsession and star power, i'd like to point out one thing about beauty - that it is, and always has been, central to art. i'm not refering to a conceptual beauty here, but the very real and physically striking kind found in a beautiful face. so, in that sense, i disagree that Rose Hobart is obscure, because it deals with a theme as old as art itself. further, to dismiss the work as a mere "recutting and recolouring" of another's work is to miss the point of the film entirely. i won't go into that now, because it'll end up in a circular argument about the merits of the film, but i will say a thing about the recycling of works; that this is something intrinsic to all art, that all good works feature elements of other works. the best new works don't come out of nothing, they extend and push existing works to create something new out of them.
ReplyDeleteI would contend that the issue of originality is more complex than that. Sure, no artwork is going to be original, and it would most likely be bad if it was. But there is a line that has to be drawn between a necessary repitition of ideas and a reliance on established forms, and an artwork that is entirely made up of the substance of a previous work.
ReplyDeleteEven among artworks that are in the latter category, something like Rosencrantz & Guildenstern I find much more legitimate, for a variety of reasons. Rose Hobart gets its point across, and it does so through the use of a previous artwork. But I don't like that utilitarian approach to creating art. Let me use a terrible analogy: I wear a lot of recycled clothes to look like someone who is well dressed. But if I were going to make an artwork of an outfit, and to make it the most beautiful that it can be, I would have it tailor made.
I am not dismissing the work because it is a recutting and recolouring of another's work, I am dismissing it for other reasons entirely. I am merely pointing out that it cannot be saved on the merit of Cornell's own technical creations; because he hasn't made any, beyond the physical editing that he has done.
As for the beauty of the actress, I suppose that that is true. But I don't think that the film is made in a way that celebrates the beauty of her face. The jazz trivialises it, the blue wash intrudes on it, and the random nature of all the shots distracts from it. If he is dealing with that theme, I still don't think that he has done it very well.
Sorry, I probably seem as if I rabidly hate Cornell by now. It's really just a mild dislike.
but even if your clothes were tailor made, the materials would have to be sourced from somewhere else, no?
ReplyDeletei actually agree about the music. i hated it, it really detracted from the experience for me. i actually thought it was a new soundtrack, added later. maybe cornell just had bad taste?
I totally agree with your opinion that this film is simply Cornell's attraction to the actress made public. The initial shots of her tent are actually incriminating when taken out of the East of Borneo context - its like the director is sneaking a glimpse of his own Sleeping Beauty.
ReplyDeleteThe sad thing about Cornell is that he is not really recreating his own unconscious.. he is just fantasizing about a story that has already been told - I read that scene in which the buff explorer dude fights on the raft with a rush of natives as Cornell wishing he could be the hero who captures Rose's heart.