From Defamiliarization to Experientiality: An Overview of the Concept of Experimental Cinema
Experimental cinema cannot be confined within a fixed and definitive definition, because the very nature of this movement rests on resisting stabilization, disrupting conventional boundaries, and testing new possibilities of cinema. Nevertheless, in order to understand this concept more precisely, one must turn to a range of definitions and theoretical formulations, each of which addresses its nature from a particular perspective. In some views, experimental cinema is presented as an artistic and avant-garde movement that exists alongside commercial cinema and challenges dominant conventions of narrative. In others, it is understood not merely as a style, but as a research-oriented and exploratory approach in which the filmmaker, rather than reproducing established patterns, tests the possibilities of form, structure, narrative, and experience. Meanwhile, some theorists emphasize its defamiliarizing role, considering it a means of disrupting the audience’s perceptual habits and opening new horizons of meaning. Accordingly, experimental cinema may be understood as a movement in which film is not merely a vehicle for storytelling, but a site for testing the language of cinema-a language that is constantly redefining itself.
As a cinematic phenomenon, experimental cinema has always been defined in relation to classical narrative cinema, as well as other unconventional forms of filmmaking. David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson explain this type of cinema in connection with avant-garde film: a movement that stands against the established norms of mainstream cinema and, by breaking narrative rules, confronts the viewer with a different mode of perception and engagement. From this perspective, experimental cinema is understood not as a rejection of cinema, but as an expansion of its possibilities.
Hans Richter, too, emphasizes the exploratory and innovative dimension of this cinema in his definition. From his point of view, experimental film provides a platform for testing new visual languages and moving away from conventional forms of expression. This emphasis on experimentation can also be found in the theoretical writings of A. L. Rees, where experimental art is described as a living, fluid, and continuously evolving art that constantly shifts established boundaries. Such an approach regards experimental cinema not as a ready-made format, but as an open and developing process.
In the same vein, Lev Manovich stresses that avant-garde and experimental cinema challenge narrative conventions and shift attention from “what is being told” to “how cinema functions.” Paul Rotha, meanwhile, by emphasizing the possibilities of the cinematic medium, demonstrates that experimental film relies less on storytelling than on materiality, form, movement, and the intrinsic qualities of the image. This understanding clearly shows that, in experimental cinema, the medium itself becomes the subject of thought and experience.
Wallis and Pramaggiore, likewise, emphasize the disregard for standard cinematic conventions and view this type of cinema as a space for establishing a more active relationship between film and audience. From their perspective, experimental cinema removes viewers from the position of passive recipients and makes them participants in the process of interpretation. Stan Brakhage also emphasizes the freedom of the experimental filmmaker to transform ways of seeing and perceiving-demonstrating that experimental cinema is not concerned solely with form, but also intervenes at the level of the audience’s perception and lived experience.
Extending these perspectives, Pasqualino and Schneider argue that experimental film challenges the audience’s conventional expectations and invites them to reconsider image, sound, and meaning. David Barnett, too, understands the term “experimental” as a research-based and exploratory approach aimed at revealing what is unknown and undiscovered. This interpretation situates experimental cinema in relation to ongoing research and exploration within the realm of cinematic expression.
In his analysis, Gene Youngblood sees experimental cinema as part of the gradual development of a genuine cinematic language-a language still in the process of formation and one that cannot be reduced to fixed rules. P. Adams Sitney likewise considers experimental films to be more experience-oriented and audience-oriented than commercial films. Holly Rogers, by emphasizing the resistance of this cinema to definition, demonstrates that experimental cinema essentially exists in a space between stabilization and escape: on the one hand, it possesses recognizable characteristics; on the other, it continuously redefines its own boundaries.
Accordingly, experimental cinema can be described as an artistic, avant-garde, and independent movement that, by distancing itself from the dominant rules and conventions of cinema, seeks to test and redefine cinematic language, form, structure, narrative, and experience. Through defamiliarizing perception and disrupting visual habits, this movement enables new experiences for the audience. In doing so, it is concerned not only with representing the world, but also with re-creating the relationship between human beings and the image.
Based on the foregoing, experimental cinema should be viewed not as a closed format, but as an open field of testing and discovery. What distinguishes this cinema is its continuous effort to move beyond established boundaries and open new horizons in cinematic language and experience. Experimental cinema is therefore always redefining itself, and this very quality makes it one of the most vibrant and dynamic realms of cinema.
A note by Mehdi Yarmohamadi
