Window Water Baby Moving

Stan Brakhage’s quote, “Somewhere, we have an eye (I’ll speak for myself) capable of any imagining (the only reality),” for me really defines the purpose of Deren and Brakhage’s films. What he is implying, is that that is no singular reality as we each construct our own, rooting itself in imagination. Therefore he is not trying to create films that appear true to life but rather expressive of the reality of imagination. He does this by abstracting recognizable forms, as he does in “Window Water Baby Moving,” and “Mothlight.” Through abstraction, we are able to see with our eyes instead of our minds, which like to place associations and narrative on familiar subjects. By taking the signified from the signifier we allow experience through sight, overcoming previous boundaries.

This week’s viewing was definitely my favorite so far. Although I appreciate Maya Deren’s work, I really gravitated toward Stan Brakhage’s work. There is simplicity of subject matter in each shot that looks extremely thought out and determined, allowing for a focus on textures, shapes, and hues. Especially in “Window Water Baby Moving,” every shot was lit beautifully and composed with, what appeared to be, careful consideration that they could have stood on their own as photographs. These film shorts celebrated film making itself as art and was very enjoyable to view.

Initial class reactions to the short film were somewhat shocking. It seems like perhaps it was difficult for viewers to stop thinking and start seeing. Instead it seemed like some jumped to create a narrative about the woman, making her into an existing figure (rather than an abstraction) who is being violated by having this “private” footage taken. I think some viewers, as well as Deren who saw the film as a violation of women believing birth to be observable exclusively by women, got too caught up in what they thought was going on in the film instead of just watching it. As said by Brakhage, “To search for human visual realities, man must…transcend the original physical restrictions and inherits worlds of the eyes.” Aesthically the film is beautiful. The shots are put together with intent, which is obvious just in composition but as well as all the instances when the film jumps from an image of giving birth to the window or bathtub, showing that Brakhage had an intention in editing the film. The graceful lighting and tender bathtub images create a softness and calm. Shadows are deliberately aligned, a windowpane on a pregnant belly.

I don’t believe it was Brakhage’s intent to make a film of his wife giving birth, but rather to make us see through capturing the physicality of the event. The film cannot be a violation of the woman in the film, Brakhage’s wife, as it exsists as an artistic expression, abstracting an actual event by changing time and space and choosing which shots to show and the order they go in. She is as much as an abstraction as the moth pieces pulled apart shimmering on the screen.

It is understandable to see where the argument arising of birth being a “private” moment, but if the film short is viewed as in a “world before the ‘beginning was the word’” it would be a totally different experience. The film doesn’t take the experience of giving birth away from women, or his wife, but presents birth lovingly while giving power back to women. “Window Water Baby Moving” is not presenting an absolute, “This is birth”, but instead a possibility through physicality. I very much appreciate how Brakhage has presented a woman actively involved in giving birth instead of a traditional depiction in which the men, doctors and partners, are the hero’s, which I find more offensive than Brakhage’s flattering film.