A priest sits at a table, pouring a little bit of liquid (from a large seashell) into a laboratory flask (similar to an Erlenmeyer), then throws the flask to pieces on the floor, and repeats this ritual seemingly endlessly (what, in fact is he doing?). Then enters an army general, who moves in peculiar ways (over the ceiling, for instance) through the room. He takes the seashell from the priest and (with his sword) destroys it. It takes many a strange and absurd scene until the priest regains this shell, which holds his reflection (his soul?) inside it.
'La coquille et la clergyman' may be an experimental film in many aspects, it dóes have a (complex) story with a beginning and an end, even if it is said about that that it takes places in the subconscious of the priest's mind... Well, I just saw this one only once, and I am far from making my mind up about what it truly is - apart from what it is meant to be (note that this film is the vision of director Dulac, and that it is assumed that writer Artaud was not content with the final result - in what way exactly, I don't know).
So, what cán I say? This is simply a great film, and it amazed me to be made as early as 1928. There is a likeness with the German expressionism (for instance when the use of light and shadows), the actors do a great job (especially Allin), and it is full of wonderful film techniques, settings, ideas and camera angles - how refreshing, even, or especially, in 2013. And then there's some adult material in there which I simply did not expect - bravo! Oh, I saw a (the?) forty minute version, what a treat: 9 out of 10.
'La coquille et la clergyman' may be an experimental film in many aspects, it dóes have a (complex) story with a beginning and an end, even if it is said about that that it takes places in the subconscious of the priest's mind... Well, I just saw this one only once, and I am far from making my mind up about what it truly is - apart from what it is meant to be (note that this film is the vision of director Dulac, and that it is assumed that writer Artaud was not content with the final result - in what way exactly, I don't know).
So, what cán I say? This is simply a great film, and it amazed me to be made as early as 1928. There is a likeness with the German expressionism (for instance when the use of light and shadows), the actors do a great job (especially Allin), and it is full of wonderful film techniques, settings, ideas and camera angles - how refreshing, even, or especially, in 2013. And then there's some adult material in there which I simply did not expect - bravo! Oh, I saw a (the?) forty minute version, what a treat: 9 out of 10.