By Chuck Stephens

There is a boy across the river
Whose cheeks are like peaches
Alas, I cannot swim

–Sappho, 600 BC

As I type this, it’s 2:00pm in northeast Los Angeles, middle of the afternoon: the sky is brown with smoke, air conditioners are walking off the job, and last night I could barely breathe. Yesterday, it was 113 degrees in parts of northeast LA; the mountains and forests around us are on fire. “Just another day in paradise,” as the most seasoned Angelenos have become all too accustomed to gritting their smiles and facetiously confessing. I wish I could say I was used to it. My last two columns were written under similar and now much-too-familiar frightmares: first, the nationwide shutdown at the beginning of the pandemic and the prospect of cascading death, and second, a state-of-siege LA wracked with rioting, looting, SWAT-team bullshit, nightly curfews, and the conviction it would only get worse. (It has.)

All of which has pretty much nothing to do with the filmmaking of Chick Strand (1931-2009), a giant of the Golden Age of experimental cinema who (with Bruce Baillie, in 1961) founded Canyon Cinema and conjured up a homegrown, West Coast cultural context wherein celluloid artistry of every sort (cartoons, documentaries, home-movie footage, assorted visionary extrapolations) could coexist and cross-pollinate. Nothing except that Strand (born Mildred D. Totman in Northern California) was also an Angeleno for much of her life, spending more than two decades teaching filmmaking at Occidental College, a five-minute drive beneath now-wildfire-brown skies (and past my favourite taqueria) from where I now sit. (Did Obama ever peek in on one of her classes during his two years there?)

An anthropologist and ethnographer by training, Strand was a filmmaker by nature (who learned from Baillie the basics of the mechanism), a proto-feminist suspicious of dogma and inclusion, and a born poet of the interplay between flesh and light, sensuality and humanity, cultures and their creatures, intimacy and the universal. Her primary optical modality was the extreme close-up, accomplished through the use of the telephoto zoom lens, which allowed Strand a bit of artisanal distance from which to visually commingle with those she photographed and clearly adored. When zoomed entirely in upon a subject, the telephoto zoom renders every image with a fleeting tenderness and tentative fragility, like a fly preparing to alight from a horse’s flank, or an all-too-human and already-ebbing caress. “I like to hold the camera next to my body when I’m shooting,” Strand once told journalist/educator Holly Willis. “I like movement. The flow…the flow…That’s what gets me.”

Strand’s body, her subject’s bodies, their touches, endless curves of light rippling into bottomless canyons of shadow, movement as interpenetration, spells woven with orgasmic sunbeams and multicoloured fabrics, rushing patterns and palpable erotic charges—these were the strings and ceiling wax that hold together Strand’s glorious work. Sometimes while watching Strand’s work, just the knowledge of her long-gone, long-term presence here in the neighbourhood fills me with a certain sense of vicarious wonder, a tiny pang of hope. During those years, Strand and her partner, the legendary painter Neon Park, split their time between Los Angeles and their second home in San Miguel de Allende, in the eastern part of Guanajuato, Mexico. It was there that Strand made some of her most dazzling films, including the stunningly sun-drenched Artificial Paradise (1982-85), a masterpiece of evanescent tactility and unsaddled joy. No single image from Artificial Paradise can capture the film’s breathless perpetual motion, so I’ve included here a panel of four. Imagine them interwoven and unfurling at speed, across a light breeze and beneath skies unpainted by hellfire, of a pleasant evening in some Californian backyard, upon a makeshift screen. Sure, it might be an artificial paradise, but it’s a paradise nonetheless. And these days, who among us is immune from wishing that movies might, even for a moment, drench us in promise and glory? And for just that glorious, already-escaping instant, somehow save us all.


Friend me on FacebookFollow me on TwitterRSS Feed

From the Magazine

  • Issue 84 Table of Contents

    INTERVIEWS *The Act of Living: GianfrancThe Act of Living: Gianfranco Rosi on Notturnoo Rosi on Notturno By Mark Peranson*Reconstructing Violence: Nicolás Pereda on Fauna By More →

  • The Act of Living: Gianfranco Rosi on Notturno

    “The night scares me so much,” confesses a courageous Yazidi pre-teen girl to a therapist, remembering the period when she and her younger sister were captured by ISIS. Anyone who was seen crying would be killed, they were told; it turned out to be a vacant threat, but the sisters were still beaten, and now they are attempting to exorcise their memories by drawing pictures of them. Does it help? We never find out. More →

  • Reconstructing Violence: Nicolás Pereda on Fauna

    There’s a point in nearly every Nicolás Pereda film when the narrative is either reoriented or upended in some way. In the past this has occurred through bifurcations in story structure or via ruptures along a given film’s docufiction fault line. Pereda’s ninth feature, Fauna, extends this tradition, though its means of execution and conceptual ramifications represent something new for the 38-year-old Mexican-Canadian filmmaker. More →

  • I Lost It at the Movies: Charlie Kaufman’s Antkind and I’m Thinking of Ending Things

    “It’s all planned, but it isn’t thought out,” wrote Pauline Kael in her review of A Woman Under the Influence (1974), a nifty bit of critical jiu-jitsu turning John Cassavetes’ much-theorized—and, during Kael’s reign at The New Yorker, much-derided—technique of spontaneous improvisation within a dramatic framework against him. More →

  • Open Ticket: The Long, Strange Trip of Ulrike Ottinger

    One of the most surprising things about Ulrike Ottinger’s new documentary Paris Calligrammes is how accessible it is. Some cinephiles may be familiar with Ottinger based on an 11-year period of mostly fictional productions that were adjacent to the New German Cinema but, for various reasons, were never entirely subsumed within that rubric. Others are quite possibly more aware of her later work in documentary, in particular her commitment to a radical form of experimental ethnographic cinema. More →