The BFI Archive’s dedicated artists’ moving image curator talks about the ongoing secret screening series.
Mic Drop (Keith Piper, 2017)
The Experimenta Mixtape is a series of screenings that commenced in early 2019 as part of the BFI’s monthly Experimenta strand and is programmed by the dedicated artists’ film and video archivist at the BFI, William Fowler.
The Mixtape is a screening for which no information is made available online beforehand, and for which there is no introduction. Audiences go in completely cold and don’t know what films they are going to see until they appear on the screen. The selections usually include artists’ moving image and experimental works but place them alongside alternative shorts, weird TV interludes, music videos, adverts, trailers and other curios. It makes for a fascianting mix that is equally enjoyable to try to figure out as it is to sit back and let it wash over you.
We sat down with William ahead of the Experimenta Mixtape #8 to talk about how the Mixtape came about, programming at the BFI, music videos and DJing in the projection booth.
William Fowler: It was funny anticipating talking about the Mixtape because, when I first started the it, it came out of actually quite a lot of thinking both intuitively and in responding to a situation; the situation of programming and certain pressures - maybe pressures is too loaded word - but just thoughts. So, it was all quite formulated in my mind, what it was, and now it's sort of become... I don't know, I'm less engaged with the thought process behind it and it's just sort of its own thing now. So when you asked to talk about it I was wondering whether I would just end up repeating what I said a few months ago, or whether I'll have anything new to say about it, as it's, I guess, less rationalised in my mind now.
ALT/KINO: To jump back to that beginning point, then, when you had a concrete idea of what the Mixtape was, and perhaps disregarding how your thinking on it may have changed subsequently - what was the impetus for starting it?
WF: So, I suppose a couple of things. I've been working on the monthly experimental film slot at the BFI for maybe 10 years - maybe not quite that long - but it's always in collaboration with someone else and that other person has usually been someone who has been based at [BFI] Southbank, so they've usually had more say, or had the deciding voice, in what we do. That's been a different person at different stages, and it may have been at times that I would do most of the programming, but they were always signing it off or talking to the programming team and stuff. Then, just with changes of staff, all of a sudden there wasn't anyone doing that role - and that was only about a year and a half ago - so actually just me programming by myself, overtly, and therefore making almost all the decisions, is quite recent. I think that probably made me, naturally, have more of a long view about it and just feel more invested and wanting to take more ownership of it.
So, I was thinking about, y'know, 'what the hell should we do?' You can just show random stuff but what should that mean, or what should its ongoing trajectory be? Also, I felt that sometimes we'd be doing things that maybe an art audience might actually be interested in, but they either wouldn't know about or even if they did, they almost wouldn't consciously think about coming to it. Maybe that's because it's at the BFI; it could be that art audiences aren't used to going there so it could be like a boundary, or just that there's so much going on in that building - all the different films, all the scheduling - it can be quite hard to navigate and I think that can create a barrier.
And then I suppose the more specific thing was actually the BFI Experimenta debate at the 2018 London Film Festival where several people spoke but specifically Morgan Quaintence was speaking. He said a number of things but a lot of it was him reflecting on what institutions do and how they engage different communities and thinking about an element of tokenism in how they engage with black British filmmakers or with different subjects. One of his criticisms was that sometimes, when they do try to actively engage with areas that maybe don't already engage, they just temporarily get someone else to do it for them and wondering why they do that. Why isn't someone else just doing it? And so, y'know, I felt like there were lots of things in that debate and it was very stimulating. In among those things it made me think that it's good to actually try and do something creatively as an institution and not just be really conservative. It was far from the only thing I took away from that day, but I sort of felt like you have to stand up and do something. Admittedly it's a modest thing, the Mixtape. The first time I think people thought it was going to be this revolutionary concept and it isn't, it's maybe for people who don't know that much about experimental film, and it just sort of takes the pressure off a little bit and mixes up some things. It's not supposed to be grandiose.
BBC TV episode Leap in the Dark: The Living Grave (David Rudkin, 1980)
I'd also done this before. The BFI did a big thing about comedy and I did this event around Jam, the Chris Morris show, and I thought it would be interesting to make connections with other types of filmmaking, or video, or absurdist experimental stuff. And I thought that if I listed what it is, then people who were into Jam wouldn't come. So, I thought 'oh, well let's just not say what we're going to show' and I guess I did that and then was wondering 'why don't we just do this all the time?'
A/K: Don't ever tell anyone what's being screened.
WF: Exactly! They might come and might not come and, hey, it might be rubbish.
A/K: So, what was the reaction like early on to that? Did people engage with the concept beyond just as a potentially fun gimmick? They were pretty well attended, if I recall correctly.
WF: Yeah, I think there was a sense of it being quite refreshing, I think. What was interesting was that people felt relaxed about saying 'I liked this film and I didn't like that film.' I'd talk to people and they'd be way more forthcoming than they would be in other circumstances, which I found really interesting. I'd talk to someone and then I'd talk to someone else and they'd say the opposite and it was clear that people had very different tastes, and all this was quite liberating. You just want to do good programming and be very clear that there is no right answer to what's good. So, you sort of have to trust your own voice a little bit. I think there were a few people early on, who came to the first couple and then didn't come back - maybe they felt like they'd 'got it' - but I think people do come in phases. I think there's also going to be a sense of 'oh, I'd quite like to go to that but I don't know what it is, so I could miss it and go next time' when there's not a specific traction or magnetic pull to this particular one. Maybe there's more people nowadays who know what it is and come along, rather than that original curiosity.
A/K: I certainly think that there are now returning audience members who know they can come along and, at the very least, see something interesting - even if they struggle to get along with one or two of the selections. It always throws up interesting combinations.
WF: Yeah, exactly. The other thing that goes into it is that I work in the [BFI] archive and the archive collects and preserves artists' film. I probably should make more of this but, while not everything comes from the archive here, a lot is stuff that's come into the archives relatively recently so it's actually a chance to show things that are new-ish works that come in. I guess I haven't really made that very overt. I guess that makes another consideration, and it means the process goes beyond just thinking about whether things work well, you're factoring in quite a lot of decisions. It would be interesting if it was blind, if no one knew who I was, if I was just invisible because, yeah, I still feel responsibilities to do certain things or not do certain things.
A/K: And what was the reaction like within the BFI, positive as well?
WF: Yeah, I think people probably didn't pay that much attention early on. I think people felt that some of them had got quite a lot of films in, so it was quite a lot of work for someone to source them all, so I think that there were points when there was some uncertainty about that. But I think there's been a bit of word of mouth inside the institution, so people heard about it and thought it was kind of an interesting thing to be doing. And then Kate Taylor, from the London Film Festival, asked me to do one for the festival - she's followed it closely and been really supportive. That's been really helpful having major support, I think it helps both with my self-confidence and in spreading the word.
A/K: So, when you're putting together a programme, are you taking certain works - like new work in the archive - as inspiration to drive a programme, or are you coming in with a thematic idea as your starting point?
WF: It varies each time, I would say. I think they all have an actual title, but they’re all secret and I'm never gonna tell anyone what they are. They all have a title, which may be quite oblique as to how it relates to what's in there, but I think it’s just to help me remember what each one is. Sometimes it's like 'oh, those two or three things might be interesting to show together in some way' and wondering what other films I've been thinking that might work, even though they might be complete opposites. So, some might gravitate around a couple of things like that, and then later on I'm like 'oh god, I can't put these together for this and this reason.' I think I programmed the first one really differently to all the others in that it was about the register being different with each film, almost - so that even if you didn't like it, you'd be thrown into a slightly different mental space with the way the next film started. So, you'd be like continually engaged, and that was almost the guiding principle, almost like DJing. It was like saying 'oh that was very visual, I should have something with lots of narration that's maybe like a documentary, that might be interesting to show after this.'
But I think my rationale varies. I think there have been blocks of films I've wanted to put together and sometimes that could be months and months ahead. I don't know whether there does feel like there is any kind of consistency. Kate Taylor said that she felt like she was starting to get a sense of what my taste was, but she didn't actually say what that was. [Laughs]
A/K: One thing that does come across with regards to your taste, or at least your curatorial tastes, is the inclusion of music videos. The screening notes for the last instalment included a paragraph or so from Peter Wollen's Ways of thinking about music video (and post-modernism) and the inclusion of music videos in these programmes - often almost as a linking material - feels quite interesting, and maybe a little unexpected in this context.
WF: Yeah, yeah. It probably comes from an archive project I did here around post-punk artists' film and video from the very early 80s - so lots of people who were broadly around the orbit of Derek Jarman, but not exclusively. It was a lot of people who had connections to pop culture, whether it was fashion, or pop music, or clubbing, or the gay scene in London, and then the scratch video scene which I think had connections to pop music, but a lot of the people in that scene ended up making music videos at some point. I was interested in how, in their early pieces, they would often play tapes of pop songs with their super8 films. I think I just really drilled down into this time of this slightly blurred area between artists' film and music video in the very early 80s when music video was sort of becoming a form that had a more underground punk connection, so I think I've kind of mentally invested in the music video quite a lot from doing that. Also, they did a Derek Jarman music video programme at the London Short Film Festival a couple of years ago - which I was loosely involved in, just introducing more than programming - and it was just very clear that everyone loved seeing music videos on the big screen.
It Couldn't Happen Here (Jack Bond, 1987)
I suppose context raises an interesting question because there are some video artists, historically - David Hall specifically, whose sadly passed away now - who wouldn't want their videos to be seen on a big screen. I mean, he wanted them to be seen on monitors because of this sculptural component and the context in which they were made. I have thought about just bringing out a laptop in front of the audience and just holding it and showing a David Hall video at some point. If I'd be allowed to do that, I don't know. But I guess while music videos were mainly shown on television, we’ve talked bfore about them progressing into music films - Moonwalker and the Pet Shop Boys film [It Couldn't Happen Here (Jack Bond, 1987)].
I guess it's that thing of context being really important for films, and sometimes things make more sense when you understand the point at which they're made, but I suppose one thing about the Mixtape is that it sort of removes context and shoves things up together, which is a different type of context. Hopefully there are trails in the programme notes for people to follow up stuff if they want to.
A/K: Yeah, I'm always interested in the different ways you can provide context and how this impacts an audience's experience of a film - and as you say, there's always some sort of context even if it is just what precedes and follows the film in the programme. I'm not sure I really have a question to segue into but there's also that question of what the innate context is in screening artists' films in a cinema, and in choosing to potentially re-contextualise an installation or a music video, and transform its mode of reception, by the very act of choosing to screen it in the cinema, let alone the specific trappings of the screening itself.
WF: Well this is a thing. You can definitely think 'what does it mean to show artists' film in the BFI?' and really drill into your head about the context it's in but just by showing it in the building, before you've even done anything, loads of stuff is starting to happen, either consciously or unconsciously, to people - either the idea of seeing it in a cinema space, or even having seen a different type of film in the same space. I think a funny thing about it is that you might think of a gallery as having a kind of cleaner or purer presentation where you can more uniquely focus on something, perhaps. But things are not always very well installed in a gallery, or the projector is not actually very good, or there's noise outside, or people.
A/K: The experience is also more fragmented and ephemeral, potentially, walking into something halfway through so you watch a little bit and then wander over to something else.
WF: Yeah, exactly. I think a lot of us are quite taken aback when they see the quality of the projection, because the BFI has to have really good projectors so often people are seeing their work in a way they've never seen it before. That often happens in the film festival, I think, particularly with artists who don't show that stuff in cinemas all that much. I think George Barber even said after the last Mixtape that even though they were quite small files, they still look pretty good.
A/K: At least it’s not the opposite!
WF: Yeah, exactly [laughs].
A/K: Obviously without spoiling any future Mixtapes, I wondered if there had been any films you'd been desperate to show but hadn't, for whatever reason, been able to.
WF: Yeah, I mean, there are some things I could say but then we might be able to show them later. I guess I can say that there are some slightly more like complex things, as in to organise. There was something I wanted to do at the London Film Festival and the festival team just felt, given everything else that was going on, it was just too much. I tried very hard to persuade them, repeatedly. I was probably quite irritating [laughs] because, I felt a lot of pressure that it had to raise its game and be special in the festival. But there's something around that I think we might try and do again. Also, there have been some artists who have just been quite hard to get hold of and haven't responded to my messages or I haven't got their direct email address. There was one particular programme where there were about three people I just couldn't get hold of, or they didn't reply to my messages.
A/K: Well, as you say, you can hopefully include them in a future programme.
WF: Yeah, it's true, it's true. They might well follow up at a later date.
A/K: So, earlier on you implied that your idea of the mixtape when you started has maybe changed, or how you think about it has changed?
WF: Part of it was that I was aware that budgets were being cut at the BFI so it was almost like thinking about how to make positives out of these things, even though there'll be less event support. So it was a case of thinking 'oh, well if we don't have introductions and we just strip down all the wrapping around it, and really focus on the films that would maybe be appreciated, or make it easier, and then when we do other stuff there might be more resources.’ Part of it was to make things simpler and be a bit more relaxed about what we show - and it doesn't have to all completely relate - and just have this looseness about it. But then, even after the first one it was obvious people still have reactions and when you can show absolutely anything you want it can be quite debilitating and paralysing because you can just do anything, within reason. I thought it'd be liberating and while I wouldn't say it wasn't, I got a bit hung up on things for a while. I started to over-analyse my decisions, which was kind of going against the point of it, to be honest. It's been interesting talking to you and other people because I definitely felt this pressure for there to be more connections and to make it more coherent and “smart”, but I realised that that's not necessarily what people want. So that was quite interesting; you think that would make it better, but it doesn't necessarily at all. I think I've sort of relaxed a bit again now.
Jack’s Dream (Joseph Cornell, 1938)
A/K: I think not being too prescriptive about the connections can make the programmes more interesting and can feel really refreshing when you'll often see shorts programmes at festivals whose theme seems manufactured as a way to sell tickets.
WF: Yeah. I definitely wanted to have like two or three things kind of drifting through that might not be overt but that would help it make some kind of sense, but a lot of it's quite intuitive. I mean, I think quite associatively, I think, so sometimes I find it difficult writing, or I can be slightly baffling to people when I think of things that don't obviously connect, so this almost plays to my strengths in some way. It's associative so I'm just like, 'what about that?!'
A/K: And in artists' film there's always the potential that people interpret things differently anyway, so following a single train of thought isn't exactly easy.
WF: Yeah, right. One of my friends said he thought it was a format that suited me quite well. But then there's this question of how much is it my thing and how much is it the BFI's thing? I mean, just as we're sitting here and talking I realise I'm talking about 'me' a lot, whereas actually it's an institution that's presenting - I guess that's an open question.
A/K: And I suppose that becomes quite interesting in particular for people who come to the Mixtape anew and are engaging with the screenings solely on the terms of them being a BFI screening.
WF: Yeah and I didn't know if Mixtape audiences go to other stuff at the BFI very much or not. I heard someone said, 'it's almost like going to a party and they show films.' I mean, it's kind of a weird party [laughs].
A/K: Yeah, I mean I've never been to this kind of party.
WF: No, me neither! [laughs] I do think about the music at the beginning that people come in to, you know, as they sit. There's been a couple of them where that was really thought through and then I slightly stepped back from that. I mean, I was doing live mixing in the projection room before the films started, I was playing two Kraftwerk tracks over the top of each other and then they segued into the film. It's like different parts of the experience and sometimes I might do something like that again, but maybe not. But you start tying yourself in knots trying to do novelty things.
A/K: But to loop back somewhat, the stripping away of the context is itself a novelty. Seeing some of these films and being allowed to just be open to it - whether it's a venerated experiment classic or something else - means they can just take it on its own terms.
WF: Yeah, it is and I think that's really important. I remember a long time ago talking with some students about what the experience was of coming to the BFI. The London Filmmakers Co-op and London Electronic Arts used to do a monthly strand here, in the 80s and 90s, and then it stopped for a while and then it got brought back when the gallery was at Southbank. Initially it was called Essential Experiments and had quite a strong, didactic, educational remit - gradually moving through the years, showing recognised classics. It was deliberately supposed to be educational, but I just remember this student felt they were coming in and the BFI was just telling them that this film is “important.”
I think it's important to have a space for that as well - like the salon events we run. I think it is interesting to say that 'this has historically been considered a really important film, why is that?' I think that's also a good thing to do so people have an understanding about how history has developed and what has maybe been in the forefront of people's minds as they've been doing other stuff. If it's just about that, though, it's a bit restrictive, I think.
A/K: I think like there's a balance to be struck, for sure. It was interesting when the BFI did the screening of László Moholy-Nagy's ABC in Sound and the film was screened, then there was a discussion, and then the film was screened again. Being very short was helpful but it did allow audiences the best of both worlds; to see the film fresh and then with additional context and explanation.
WF: Weirdly, we did the same thing here with the Moholy-Nagy family - they came in and I just said let's just watch it, and then we watched it again and it worked so well we thought we'd just do that in the cinema.
With the salons, my intention would be that we could watch the film three or four times over the course of like 90 minutes and talk about it at different points. You'd have to pick the film right; it would have to be something that would actually feel rewarding to do that because not all films merit that, but it would be interesting just to watch something over and over and get to know it more. I guess when you do that, it also becomes more alive and not this kind of frozen classic of cinema that's an artefact with no space to talk about in any other way. Just by watching it several times, by having your own experience of it several times, it already loosens up. I have thought about putting a film in twice in the Mixtape, but I don't know, it might just be annoying.
A/K: There's bound to be someone who's annoyed or thinks it’s a mistake.
WF: Yeah, definitely - 'I've seen this one!' [laughs]
William’s book, co-written with Vic Pratt, The Bodies Beneath: The Flipside of British Film & Television is now avaialble to buy from the BFI.