Hans Richter – Vormittagsspuk (Ghosts before breakfast) 1928

I’ve just watched this short film – Ghosts before breakfast last night from youtube, and it was really hard for me to understand its meaning. Some people call it as a surrealism film, some consider as a Dada’s film, other consider it as a Nazi’s film because the movie was intended to convey the political destabilization of the status quo. In my view, it is considered as a surrealism film. This experimental film was made around 1927-28, about anarchy during the World War I. 

What I like the most about this movie is that it was dominantly implicated by symbolism, idealism, impressionism—the confusion causes abstraction. Objects were acted or represented as people, such as, hats, cups, and clock. After researching about the meaning and the history of the movie, I more understood about the meaning behind its scene.

The story of the Ghosts before breakfast was originally scripted following Werner Graff’s film, which was about the rebellion of revolvers. And, Richter opposed this idea, in terms of revolvers that rebel do not shoot; hence, to Richter, shooting was not considered as an action. The hardest symbolism that I couldn’t understand after watching this film couple times is the flying hats. Thanks to an article on Internet, I found out that the flying hats refer to a German linguistic pun, meaning, “being taken care of protected or shielded”, another saying; it means “wary, careful, or cautious”. Also, the flying has contains another potent metaphor as a symbol in German literature—cultural symbolism. Similarly, the image of hands of the clock showing five minutes to twelve is a metaphor signifying danger. Ultimately, Richter tried to indicate the society’s stability in danger, and it is urgent (five to twelve). Political saying, this is the last chance before noon and time is up at twelve. So, when the clock strikes twelve, nothing more can be done.

“ It is time to act”!

Another thing that I appreciate about the movie is the score. The conducted orchestra definitely contributed to the film’s movement and drew along the series of action.

Overall, the movie was made creatively, distinctively, and meaningfully. However, the message was vaguely sent to the viewer but might be obvious to contemporary viewers. Identically, the unusual camera angles, quick cutting, repeated motion (flying hats, a man walking), distortion (a man with his cutting hand waving), are quite strange and boring.

Also the message that the filmmaker tries to send is distracted and somewhat irrelevant to me by dragging the story with the series of unfamiliar insights, unusual images, and unrelated objects. Therefore, in my opinion, the film somehow appears as a member of Dada. I am wondering whether it is intentional that people were identically robot-like, or it was manipulated to tease on the status quo. Technically, the film was successful in Film form especially literary devices; yet, the content was merely a contemporary work.

I also watched other avant-garde films, such as, Anémic cinema by Duchamp, which he filmed a spinning spiral design intercut with a spinning disc containing French phrases; or Le Retour à la raison (Return to Reason) by Man Ray, which heavily borrowed from Dadaism, and suggested the deconstruction of art itself, was at nearly the heart of Dada ethics. Honestly saying, those films of Dada movement were incredible absurd and meaningless to me; however, it is helpful to watch those experimental surrealistic films to know the process of cinema’s development and practice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqguzDeejFk