SEC_5_3_06-Andersson_080037 1/15/09 8:06 PM Page 207

Studies in European Cinema Volume 5 Number 3 © Intellect Ltd 2008.

Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/seci.5.3.207/1

Amateur and avant-garde: minor

cinemas and public sphere in
1950s Sweden
Lars Gustaf Andersson Lund University, Sweden
John Sundholm Karlstad University, Sweden

Abstract Keywords
This article is a study of Swedish post-war amateur and experimental film experimental film
culture. In particular, the 50s and the gradual divide between amateurs and amateur film
experimentalists are examined. Peter Weiss’ filmic output is used as an example Swedish film culture
of how the various cultures collaborated and later on split apart. The aim with the film historiography
essay is also to intervene in the ongoing debate concerning film historiography by Peter Weiss
arguing for the usefulness of the concepts ‘minor cinemas’ and ‘public sphere’ in
order to enable a more diverse, open and heterogeneous film history.

Film history and conventional film historiography have been challenged 1 For example,
for several reasons during the last decades. The current confusion con- Friedberg, Anne
(1993), Window
cerning the status regarding film as medium is for sure one of the primary Shopping: Cinema and
causes. If film really was just ‘a brief interlude in the history of the ani- the Postmodern,
Berkeley: University of
mated image’, as Sean Cubitt (2004: 97) puts it following Lev Manovich, California Press;
the history has, of course, to be rewritten. Conversely, the various studies Zielinski, Siegfried
(1999), Audiovisions,
on the history of early cinema have shown that film always has been part Amsterdam:
of a more diverse and vast media culture. An observation that has become Amsterdam
University Press and
the current premise and point of departure in various approaches and ver- Manovich, Lev
sions that goes under the title of ‘media archaeology’.1 (2001), The Language
The new situation may be viewed not only as a break and a problem of New Media,
Cambridge, MA: MIT
but also as an opportunity. Thomas Elsaesser (2004) has stressed the latter Press.
in a recent essay called ‘The New Film History as Media Archaeology’. He
does not, however, offer a clearly defined point of departure for a new film
history, or media archaeology for that matter but, his contribution should
nevertheless be considered as a liberating move. What Elsaesser envisions
is that from now on we may have several different parallel histories of film,
of the ‘supergenre’ (as coined by D. N. Rodowick) either of the moving
image or of visual media. In fact, it looks as if the current landscape of film
has never corresponded better with Michel Foucault’s anti-causal and
anti-theological historiography, except for when it comes to early film
history (Foucault 1989). It was largely because of studies of early film
history (that Elsaesser calls ‘new film history’) that a paradigmatic break

SEC 5 (3) 207–218 © Intellect Ltd 2008 207

SEC_5_3_06-Andersson_080037 1/15/09 8:06 PM Page 208

2 Thanks to Gunnar with traditional film history took place. But, although a Foucauldian posi-
Iversen, NTNU,
Norway, for pointing
tion seems to be more in tune with the times and the current media land-
out Maltby’s work in scape we don’t want to adhere to an overt anti-humanism that omits any
connection to this actual human agency, a stance that is one of the Foucauldian premises.
research.
When looking at the field of experimental film it is evident that a history of
3 See for example David
Bordwell’s critique in amateur and experimental cinemas is in particular a history of individu-
Bordwell 1997. als, of working alone or together in small communities. Conversely, this
‘singularity’ and smallness of the culture makes collectives such as clubs,
societies and organizations important as well.
It is apparent how common film historiography was structured accord-
ing to classical canonical criteria of the arts; a principle that put the single
film works in the foreground and made it possible for the film as text to
retain its currency inside academia. This despite that film has had a huge
impact on culture, history and people, in general. Richard Maltby’s critical
remark in ‘How Can Cinema History Matter More?’ is, therefore, worth
quoting and barring in mind: ‘To write a history of texts and call it a history
of Hollywood involves omitting the social processes and cultural function of
cinema, and denies the contextual significance of the material conditions
under which movies were produced and consumed’ (Maltby 2007).2
The strategies of conventional film history that focused mostly on the
individual texts were of course part of heuristic tactics of institutional
manoeuvres. It was both a way of establishing film as an art form and a
way of creating a film history to teach and reproduce a defined and differ-
entiated sample of films; a selection that would constitute exactly that par-
ticular body of films that film history could ‘naturally’ refer to.3 Thus, the
history that was quoted was the same history that had been created in the
first place. Therefore, counter-histories, micro-histories and marginal
practices become necessary, not only because they complement and ques-
tion the established picture, but also since they constitute an ethical move
in the field of film studies and film culture; reminding us of the fact – as
Elsaesser writes in a tribute to Noël Burch – that everything could have
been otherwise (Elsaesser 2004: 7).
Hopefully, this essay will contribute to such a more divergent and dif-
ferentiated or, ‘other’ vision of the field by picturing alternative film cul-
tures of the 50s in a minor European country. We will introduce and track
two discourses that usually have been both marginalized and treated as
separate spheres in the history of film (whatever that may constitute
today), namely those between experimental and amateur filmmaking.
Moreover, the discourses will be analyzed in relation to film culture at the
time in Sweden, and from the perspective of post-Habermasian theories of
the public sphere (Negt and Kluge 1993; Hansen 1991). This enables an
approach in which film culture may be considered as a practice that
includes producers, products and recipients hence, covering both institu-
tions and actual agents and not being restricted to texts or reception only.
On 11 November 1956, the Swedish broadcasting company, SR,
devoted one hour to, amateur and substandard film or, ‘narrow film’ as it

208 Lars Gustaf Andersson and John Sundholm

SEC_5_3_06-Andersson_080037 1/15/09 8:06 PM Page 209

was called in Swedish.4 The program was hosted by the art critic Ulf Hård 4 The program was
called Mambo i
af Segerstad who chose to show both amateur and experimental work by filmrytm (‘Mambo in
established artists. Segerstad had promoted amateur and experimental filmrythm’) and
film for a couple of years by writing art criticism in one of Sweden’s received very
disparaging reviews.
leading news-papers, Svenska Dagbladet,5 and his arguments and visions
5 The columns and
were made in a vein similar to that of Maya Deren and, a yet to come Stan reviews on film were
Brakhage.6 According to Segerstad history had shown that the true mainly written during
the years
explorer of the art of photography had been the amateur, thus the 1955–1957.
amateur filmmaker was an essential figure in the evolution of film art as
6 See for example the
well. Besides that the amateur was characterized by disinterest for film as chapter ‘The Idea of
business, he or she, was driven by the sheer passion for the medium and the Amateur’ in
James 2005.
was therefore the one that could experiment unreservedly. Thus, all
according to Segerstad, the amateur was in many ways the true artist of 7 Letter from Lindgren
to Segerstad 8
this modern and transient medium. November 1956. The
However, also the production side had their interests and visions. Arne Film Form Archive.
Lindgren, a dentist by profession and the secretary and front figure of the
Independent Film Group, wrote a letter to Segerstad the days before the
program was to be broadcasted in order to clarify a few points.7 Lindgren’s
actual intention with the letter was to make clear to Segerstad that the
Film Group had nothing to do with neither amateur nor substandard film-
making. According to Lindgren, the only common denominator was that
due to economical reasons the filmmakers at the workshop used the same
format. Thus, the right name for the work produced at the workshop was
‘free film’ while the films were non-commercial and made without any
considerations of making profit. Hence, the films produced were therefore –
following Lindgren – neither amateur films nor experimental ones. Peter
Weiss, who at the time had not yet had his international breakthrough as
a writer, was an exception according to Lindgren; Weiss was the only real
experimental filmmaker of the Film Group.
At the time Weiss had finished his surrealistic short films (during the
years 1952–1956) and worked on documentaries and educational films.
Yet, Lindgren added another characteristic as well because he was obvi-
ously not comfortable with a purely materialistic definition of the practice:
the films produced at the Independent Film Group in Stockholm were to be
characterized by the intention to make films that were artistic and per-
sonal. The members of the board of the workshop were constantly hesitat-
ing when it came to how to name their film practice. Free film was
obviously preferred because the films made by the Film Group hade been
harshly criticized for being pretentious and bad copies of the historical
avant-garde. But, they felt a need to distinguish themselves from the ama-
teurs as well, although, conversely, they wanted to include as much of the
short film production as possible. During the spring of 1957, the Film
Group chose to substitute the term free film with ‘films that were charac-
terized by artistic-experimental intentions’. The change in naming the
practice and culture was foremost due to a final break and divide between
the amateurs and the more experimentally oriented filmmakers.

Amateur and avant-garde: minor cinemas and public sphere in 1950s Sweden 209
SEC_5_3_06-Andersson_080037 1/15/09 8:06 PM Page 210

8 Tom Gunning (1990). Lindgren’s letter to Segerstad actualizes a set of topics that are of inter-
As David E. James
rightly points out the
est regarding how the different film cultures understood their practice,
term is adopted from how they merged and came apart. Yet, the letter poses also implicitly the
Gilles Deleuze’s and question of how to write a history of these minor cultures and practices.
Félix Guattari’s
argument that Kafka We will focus upon three themes in particular. First, how the film culture
constitutes a minor that Segerstad envisioned and promoted as a united whole – that of
literature, but makes
‘no sense according to cinephilia, amateur filmmaking and experimental film – had already in
common usage of the 1956 split into separate spheres. Second, how difficult it is to write a
term’, that is, as
‘minority culture’ history of minor cinemas – an aptly concept introduced by David E. James –
(James 2005: 446). because of its transient, momentary nature (James 2005: 12–13). Third,
9 Klüver was one of the in what sense minor cinemas may constitute a public sphere in Oskar
major figures behind Negt’s and Alexander Kluge’s sense.
E. A. T., Experiments
in Art and James’ notion of minor cinemas is taken from an essay by Tom
Technology, an Gunning in which he launches the term as a denominator for all film cul-
organization that
would – among other tures that in one way or another are marginal in relation to a dominant
activities – arrange film culture.8 Public sphere, conversely, is of importance as a concept
the legendary nine
evenings in New
because of the fact that the various cultures of cinephilia in 40s Sweden
York, during the fall were characterized by openness and diversity, of being an ideal social
of 1966, where artists sphere. There was, for example, no overt separation between theory and
such as John Cage,
Öyvind Fahlström, practice – a common trait for both experimental and amateur film culture
Deborah Hay, Steve as well – every viewer was a potential filmmaker. The film clubs were keen
Paxton, Yvonne
Rainer and Robert on organizing competitions in screenwriting or the writing of analytical
Rauschenberg essays and the awards consisted usually of filmic hardware: rolls of film or
collaborated with
Klüver and his team equipment. Especially, the film club at Stockholm University College was a
of engineers from the meeting and breeding place for people who would later become major
Bell Laboratories.
Klüver also curated
figures in Swedish, or even, world culture; for example the multi-skilled
together with Allan artist Peter Weiss and the innovative collaborator Billy Klüver who would
Kaprow the cutting end up at Bell Laboratories, New Jersey, in the end of the 50s.9
edge exhibition ‘Art
1963 – A New The discourse on amateur filmmaking that the critic Segerstad intro-
Vocabulary’, duced and endorsed saw the amateur as the primary agent behind the
Philadelphia 1962.
development of the tenth art. Thus, he supported the teleological story
that David Bordwell has coined the ‘the Standard Version’ (Bordwell
1997). It was the amateur, the pioneer, like the brothers Lumiére and
Georges Méliès that gave birth to and developed the film medium. Thus,
the condition of film had its prerequisite in the figure of the amateur, the
disinterested enthusiast. But, the discourse on the amateur displays as well
that the question of film culture, that is, what film is and what it signifies
as a practice, is open to constant renegotiations. Not only do cinephilia,
amateur and experimental filmmaking create an alternative culture and
public sphere in relation to the mainstream, but also the minor cinemas
interact with the dominating film culture. Hence, amateur and experi-
mental filmmaking also was formed in relation to the mainstream. This is
evident in particular when looking at what was screened at the film clubs
and film societies at the time. It was during this period, when mainstream
cinema and the minor cinemas were interdependent that Swedish experi-
mental film established itself as a discourse in its own right.

210 Lars Gustaf Andersson and John Sundholm

SEC_5_3_06-Andersson_080037 1/15/09 8:06 PM Page 211

The production of experimental film or avant-garde film in Sweden is 10 An overview of

Swedish experimental
marginal during the first decades of the 20th century, even with a gener- film and its
ous definition of the experimental as aesthetics as well as a public institutional practices
sphere.10 The wellknown example in Swedish film history, Symphonie diag- is presented by Lars
Gustaf Andersson
onale (1924) by Viking Eggeling, was not even produced in Sweden. The et al. 2006.
first real feature film with experimental ambitions was directed by Rune
Hagberg in 1947; . . . och efter skymning kommer mörker (‘. . . after dusk
there is darkness’, 1947). It was not until the beginning or the mid-50s
that a more continuous and organized production of experimental film,
mostly shorts, was possible.
There is, however, in the early 20s already a public sphere of sorts,
where the American and continental avant-garde film could be introduced
and discussed. In popular magazines, like Filmnyheter and Filmjournalen,
there were indeed articles on avant-garde pioneers such as Eggeling, Clair
and Epstein, as well as essays on Soviet montage cinema and film theory.
Even more important was the founding of the student film clubs, the most
influential the one that was founded in 1934 at Stockholm University
College. The student film clubs were able to arrange closed screenings of
films prohibited by governmental censorship, for example, Lot in Sodom
(James Watson & Melville Webber, 1933), Battleship Potemkin (Sergei
Eisenstein, 1925) and The Great Dictator (Charlie Chaplin, 1940). The
Stockholm film club was also – with a contemporary term – an important
window for works in progress and for home movies. Emil Heilborn – leg-
endary industry filmmaker and photographer – was a popular guest,
screening test versions of commercial features as well as home movies. The
members themselves were always encouraged to show films of their own.
The magazine Biografbladet (‘The Cinema Paper’) turned with film-
maker and critic Gösta Werner as general editor into an arena for
cinephilia. It functioned as a meeting place for the film club members,
young critics and cinephiles. Mostly, the student film club system was the
place that brought these people together. When the Independent Film
Group (Arbetsgruppen för film, literally the ‘Film Working Group’) was
founded 1950 some of the members were already well known from
Biografbladet. In 1953, a team of young writers and film buffs launched
the new journal Filmfront that was more professionally produced and dis-
tributed and connected to the highly popular film society movement.
Filmfront lived on for some years, but ended in 1956, because of several
reasons. One was the conflict between two fractions; the older generation of
cinephiles, many of whom also were home movie makers, and a younger
generation, consisting of intellectuals and artists, inspired by the historical
avantgarde and Maya Deren. Finally, the conflict resulted in the sacrifization
of Filmfront. Despite this strategic loss for the avantgarde, a discursive field
had been defined, a public sphere for the Swedish experimental cinema.
What is notable during the 50s is how the different organizations and
institutions became polarized during the mid-50s. During the 40s there
was an open and heterogeneous space for cinephilia in which amateur,

Amateur and avant-garde: minor cinemas and public sphere in 1950s Sweden 211
SEC_5_3_06-Andersson_080037 1/15/09 8:06 PM Page 212

experimental and commercial films (that is, both regular feature film and
specialized genres such as industry film) were all part of the same cultural
space. The film club at Stockholm University College and the Independent
Film Group belonged both to different amateur organizations and arranged
mutual screenings as well. The national organization of amateur filmmak-
ers (Riksförbundet Sveriges Filmamatörer, 1940) was run by Count Lennart
Bernadotte, the King’s nephew, and because of its prominent chairman the
public screenings were reported regularly in the leading press.
Hence, it was the film clubs that constituted an open space for
cinephilia during the 40s where amateur, avant-garde and commercial
work could be screened. The film clubs even produced films and organized
competitions in screenwriting and theoretical writing on film (Peter Weiss
won one of the competitions in 1946). In this culture – according to the
liberal ideal – one simply was what one did. However, already in 1946
activists at the film club decided to create a separate group – an avant-
garde – for those who were most dedicated to film. This split forecasts the
definitive divide that took place in the mid-50s.
The Independent Film Group was founded with the mission to create a
comprehensive culture of experimental film. Screenings, theoretical
writing, film production and public lecturing were all to be part of the
activities of the workshop. The early members constitute an impressive list:
Öyvind Fahlström, Pontus Hultén, Carl Fredrik Reuterswärd, Harry Schein
among others. Schein would become the first director of the Swedish Film
Institute, Fahlström and Reuterswärd became internationally recognized
artists and Hultén a successful director of both Sweden’s museum of con-
temporary art (Moderna Museet) and Centre Pompidou in Paris. The core of
the group in the 50s consisted of the dentist Arne Lindgren, the Romanian
refugee and engineer Mihail Livada, and artist and writer Peter Weiss.
The Swedish national amateur organization had declined after 1948
when Bernadotte moved to West-Germany. A new start took place in 1955
because of the arrival of new and cheap technology, but foremost because
Sweden had suddenly a prosperous middle class due to the post-war finan-
cial boom. One of the most typical embodiments for this era of prosperity is
that of the engineer. Accordingly, also the amateur organization came to
be run by – mostly – engineers in the 50s. Their model for film production
was clear: they wanted to copy the mainstream and its established norms
for filmic practice and expression. Thus, ‘amateur’ was a concept that only
signified the actual position – or profession – of the filmmaker. In her study
on the social history of amateur film, Reel Families: A Social History of
Amateur Film, Patricia Zimmermann claims that it was the middle class
and mainstream culture in general that appropriated the amateur film; as
technology, arena and form of representation since the 50s. Bell & Howell
reported in a market survey concerning European amateur film that the
situation there was even more class bound than in the US. The equipment
for the European market had to be more advanced, since the target group
was the upper middle class (Zimmerman 1995: 120). In general, one can

212 Lars Gustaf Andersson and John Sundholm

SEC_5_3_06-Andersson_080037 1/15/09 8:06 PM Page 213

say that the engineer was the social category – both in terms of class and 11 Memo by Mihail
Livada and Arne
gender – that dominated the Swedish organization for amateur filmmak- Lindgren, ‘Om mål
ing since the mid-50s. och medel för
The Independent Film Group decided soon to leave the company of Riksförbundet
Sveriges
engineers. The matter of dispute was that Peter Weiss was hindered from Filmamatörer’,
participating in one of the Scandinavian substandard film competitions in September the 1th
1955, Sveriges Film
1956. There had been disagreement from the beginning between the och Videoamatörer,
leaders of the Film Group, Livada and Lindgren, and the amateur film- The Municipal
Archive of Norrtälje.
makers. Livada and Lindgren even suggested that the term ‘amateur film’
should be replaced with ‘free film’ to accentuate the financial indepen- 12 Jury judgement from
the annual film
dence. Besides that, a memo of theirs reveals that they found the term competition in
amateur film embarrassing.11 substandard
filmmaking. Årets
Conversely, the local amateur organizations were reluctant to be associ- smalfilm 1955.
ated with the experimental film makers. They assumed that the experimen- Sveriges Film och
Videoamatörer
tal film had given Swedish substandard film a bad reputation: ‘It seems that (‘Swedish Association
in Sweden you have to make abstract and experimental films, preferably of Film and Video
Amateurs’), The
with instructions for use’ was a remark made in the discussion (Törnblom Municipal Archive of
1955). Into this increasingly polarized space that had used to be the public Norrtälje.
sphere of cinephilia entered a new part in the 50s: television. The company
of Swedish broadcasting, SR, introduced already in 1956 a competition in
experimental filmmaking for amateurs. The objective at SR was both to
increase the cultural status of television and to find employees for the new
medium that yearned for personnel as well as material. (Most of the new
employees came from radio and had no audiovisual experience.)
However, all these different organizations and institutions did not grow
into a culture of cinephilia. Instead they became even more divided into sep-
arate spheres with separate interests, this in spite of Segerstad’s efforts to
merge the cultures in the fight for a free ‘artistic’ film, as he called it. When
the institutions took care of the amateur the outcome was almost the oppo-
site: The winner in the first competition organized by SR – Ett nät av drömmar
(‘A web of dreams’, Torbjörn Broberg 1957) – copied all the main traits from
Deren’s Meshes of the Afternoon (1943). That was hardly the ambition of
Deren when she had promoted and celebrated the idea of the amateur as
being the only one that was fully free to use and explore the medium.
When these institutions – the broadcasting company and the amateur
organization – were involved in film production, in a field where the
extreme positions were that of commercial filmmaking and experimental
film respectively, they tried to find a middle way. This is evident in how the
experimental filmmakers’ productions were received. At the substandard
competition in 1955, the jury wrote about poet and critic Eivor Burbeck’s
Iris: ‘All too experimental and esoteric in its nature. Leaves a big question
mark’.12 The short film by Burbeck is a witty and sensual story in which
the filmmaker employs simple animation devices in order to create a semi-
otic play of sorts around the visual and semantic meanings of the words.
Letters and strings with text are transformed into new words, graphic
figures or, ends up as objects in their own right. A telling example is when

Amateur and avant-garde: minor cinemas and public sphere in 1950s Sweden 213
SEC_5_3_06-Andersson_080037 1/15/09 8:06 PM Page 214

13 The volume the Swedish word for ‘float’ actually floats on the screen, and the viewer
Avantgardefilm (1956)
by Peter Weiss is one
realizes that the letters – made out of paper – are afloat in water.
of the first book The most striking example of the controversy between amateur film-
length introductions makers and experimentalists is the case of Peter Weiss. The German-
of experimental and
avantgarde cinema, speaking cosmopolite Weiss moved not only geographically – from Berlin,
even with Prague and London to Alingsås and Stockholm – but also between art
international
standards (it was forms. As a refugee in Sweden during the Second World War, he tried to be
translated into French accepted both as a painter – he had been a student at the Art Academy in
1989, Cinema
d’avantgarde, and into Prague – and as a novelist. But it was through film that he managed to
German 1995, find a position in Swedish culture. He became a member of the
Avantgarde Film). The
book is mainly based
Independent Film Group and was soon one of their most influential and
on articles and creative participants. Weiss lectured and wrote about film, and directed
lectures from the 40s some of the most important films of Swedish experimental cinema.13 He
and early 50s, and its
distribution was one made a series of not only surrealistic shorts but also some innovative doc-
of the reasons why umentaries, and in the end of the decade he made the feature film,
Swedish experimental
film became Hägringen (‘The Mirage’, 1959), encouraged by no less than Jonas Mekas,
acknowledged in the who – according to the legend at least – did send over film stock from New
cultural sphere. Soon
the Swedish York. Hägringen meant a great effort for Weiss, but was no success. He
development was would continue filming, although he left the medium definitely in the
discovered by
international journals
beginning of the 60s because of the tremendous breakthrough as novelist
like Film Culture in and playwright in Germany. Since that Weiss was a major international
which Edouard writer and public intellectual, an image that did not benefit from his
Laourot wrote an
overstated article, earlier film output.
enthusiastically titled Weiss’ first short films were deeply influenced by the continental surre-
‘Swedish Cinema –
Classic Background alist tradition of the pre-war period; filled with tableaux vivants of nude
and Militant bodies and objects as glasses, fruits, knives. The surrealist shorts of Weiss
Avantgarde’.
were screened at festivals and film clubs around Sweden. The reception
14 Minutes for meeting was often harsh and the films were also debated in the press, and in film
between RSF,
Fotografiska föreningens journals such as Filmfront. In 1956, he was hindered by the national
filmsektion (‘The Film amateur organization to participate in a Scandinavian film competition; it
Division of the
Photographer’s was assumed that the jury would not be able to understand his contribu-
Associaton’) and tion. As a protest the Independent Film Group withdraws all their films
Experimentfilmstudion
(‘The Film Group’), from the competition; it was obvious that the accusations of abstrusity was
dated 1952. Film a bad excuse – the films of Weiss were quite simply supposed to be too con-
Form Archive.
troversial. The director of the national competition in 1956, engineer Olof
15 Minutes for the SFAR Farup, had already four years earlier been protesting against the participa-
(Sveriges
Filmamatörers tion of Weiss’ Studie I and Studie II (both 1952) in a national competi-
Riksförbund, ‘The tion.14 Finally the quarrel in 1956 led to the exclusion of Peter Weiss from
National Association
for Film Amateurs’) the amateur film culture.15 At this time, the Film Group launched them-
meeting, 11 March. selves internationally as the ‘The Independent Film Group’ and the open
Sveriges Film och
Videoamatörer,
workshop turned now into an elite society.
Municipal Archive of It is quite obvious that Peter Weiss was interested in the established
Norrtälje. amateur organizations because they enabled international exhibition and
distribution. The annual substandard film competitions had prestigious
sponsors in leading Scandinavian newspapers; Aftenposten (Norway),
Berlingske Tidende (Denmark), Helsingin Sanomat (Finland) and Svenska

214 Lars Gustaf Andersson and John Sundholm

SEC_5_3_06-Andersson_080037 1/15/09 8:06 PM Page 215

Dagbladet (Sweden). Because of the broad interest in amateur filmmaking 16 Editorial in the
program brochure for
from the press the leading figures at the Swedish amateur organization Stockholms
began to attack the Film Group, accusing its members of destroying the studentfilmstudio,
reputation of Swedish amateur film. The amateurs were simply scared by No. 3, 1959.

the negative press the experimental filmmakers received.

This aggressive or at least offensive launching of the Swedish experi-
mental cinema and the clash with the amateurs and the engineers meant
that Weiss was not only excluded from the lodge of amateurs but also from
the cinephiles. The film clubs, conversely, became major public movements
that due to the pressure from the general public began to screen popular
films that the audience wanted to see again, paying half the price the
second time. In 1959, the chairman of the Stockholm student film club
wrote resignedly:

To run a student film club nowadays is no longer a pioneer work; there are
no longer any driving spirits, gathered at the meetings to see film classics,
discussing montage and other filmic devices, and spreading their almost reli-
gious conviction about the excellence of the film art. A film club, especially
in Stockholm, struggles above all with the economy.16

Exactly as the case was with the journal Filmfront, the debacle with the
films of Peter Weiss implemented a new and narrower discursive field, the
Swedish experimental film. The controversies resulted in the disintegration
of the original culture of the alternative film; minor cinemas became sepa-
rate segments that were no longer able to communicate with each other
as before.
The divide in the late 50s into amateur and experimental film culture,
show that although the various film practices do overlap they also consti-
tute separate spheres with own interests and own histories. As soon as a
film club or a film society, despite its heterogenic practice, began to orga-
nize its activities it had to specify the objectives and rationale of the move-
ment hence commence with its historiography. This is in particular true of
the amateur and experimental film cultures while they were closely
involved in filmmaking and therefore directly in film aesthetics as well – a
whole practice had to be established and justified. This becomes evident
when looking at Mihail Livada’s and Arne Lindgren’s policy towards all
the different non-commercial film producers in post-war Sweden: the
amateur organizations, the film unit at the Swedish broadcasting
company, and later on the FilmCentre (FilmCentrum, 1968) and the
Filmworkshop (Filmverkstan, 1973–2001). Historiographically, these
movements are part of a general history of minor cinemas and cinematic
practices in the margin.
It is Foucault who has made a well-known and useful distinction
between ‘total’ and ‘general history’ (Foucault 1989: 10). Whereas a total
history attempts to establish boundaries in order to create an essence for the
object under study – as in this case: ‘the amateur film’ or ‘the experimental

Amateur and avant-garde: minor cinemas and public sphere in 1950s Sweden 215
SEC_5_3_06-Andersson_080037 1/15/09 8:06 PM Page 216

film’ – a general history looks for possible connections, intersections and dis-
connections. Minor cinemas may be viewed as one such field that is created
by its marginal – and partly antagonistic – relation to the mainstream, being
both connected and disconnected in relation to the centre of film culture. It
is striking how many individual trajectories that moves across the different
organizations and cultures, being partly amateur, partly experimental and
partly commercial. Peter Weiss in particular is a telling example. His first
film Studie I (1952) is an amateur film fully financed by him and shot at his
home with friends and associates. Weiss’ next films were made as part of the
Independent Film Groups’ activities and later on he would make educational
films sponsored by organizations like the Social Democratic Party and the
information agency of Swedish insurance companies. His last film, the com-
mercial feature film Svenska flickor i Paris (released in USA as The Flamboyant
Sex, 1963) was renounced by Weiss. This diverse output of Weiss is impossi-
ble to boil down to one common denominator: a personal style, a movement
or a coherent film culture. It is not part of a national strand either, and
therefore not included in regular Swedish film history.
While the amateur and experimental film cultures kept a close tie
between production and viewing, reading and discussing, the concept of
public sphere (Öffentlichkeit) is useful and appropriate. Regarding the
amateur clubs it is obvious that they formed classical, liberal, public spheres
in Jürgen Habermas’ sense. To make films, to watch them and to discuss
and judge was a typical male middle-class activity, yet the amateur film
culture maintained a critical and utopian function. Here the activity was
characterized by sheer commitment and freed from external constraints
although the values and norms for filmmaking were often copied from the
mainstream. The student film clubs, conversely, were not as gender biased
as the amateur ones and they showed more controversial films, even work
that had not passed governmental censorship. Yet, we have to remember
that students at the time constituted an elite group, most of them had no
connections to the lower strata of society. Nevertheless, instead as being a
model for an ideal condition, a public sphere should rather be considered as
a culture in which people with mutual interests may get together in order
to produce something new and needed. It is exactly such a concept of the
public sphere that Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge adheres to, and which
they launched in part as a critique of Habermas’ more normative and his-
torical model (Negt and Kluge 1993). According to Negt and Kluge move-
ments and cultures are realized in transitory places and situations while a
successful public sphere demands a specific context of living, or ‘being’
(Lebenszusammenhang). It was such a promise that the amateur and experi-
mental film cultures entailed. As we have shown these cultures were full-
fledged activities; magazines were written, films were made, screenings
arranged etc. Despite the mutual passion for film the cultures never merged
altogether, albeit they influenced each other and constituted spheres in
which both sides could act and take part in common activities. Cultures like
these also produced significant films and significant writing, a practice that

216 Lars Gustaf Andersson and John Sundholm

SEC_5_3_06-Andersson_080037 1/15/09 8:06 PM Page 217

may not be fully understood by concentrating on either the film text or on

the reception – the films hardly reached regular theatres.
The discourses and strategies around minor cinemas in 50s Sweden
display as well that the theories about the disinterested amateur and the close
ties between amateur and experimental filmmaking is problematic. David E.
James has argued that amateur filmmaking constituted partly a counter-
movement while Patricia Zimmerman puts it bluntly: ‘technical standards,
aesthetic norms, socialization pressures, and political goals derailed its
[amateur filmmaking] cultural construction into a privatized, almost silly,
hobby’ (Zimmerman 1995: 157). Our case study shows, conversely, that a
totalizing claim regarding Swedish post-war minor cinema is impossible. In
general it is obvious that when the amateurs became organized and strived
for popularity they tried to copy the industry. This move created in turn a
counter reaction from the experimentalists. Conversely, the amateurs wanted
as well to lay claim upon artistic integrity and qualities and arranged compe-
titions were experiments were encouraged. Due to the generous coverage in
the press they were nonetheless firmly tied to the mainstream (that at the
time was becoming quite radical as well, the obvious example is of course
Ingmar Bergman). Thus, every filmic practice is related to an audience, to a
social relation and practice, and encompasses therefore ideals and values that
are both social and aesthetic. Film as actual institution became polarized
when the question of awards and prizes was raised but, on the level of sheer
filmmaking the field was heterogeneous. Peter Weiss could and did make
totally different films, both in aim and scope. Hence, there was always space
for alternatives as there was space for mainstream solutions as well.
Thus, to sum up a conclusion of our research into the public sphere of
avant-garde and amateur film cultures in 1950s Sweden it will actually be
that of film historiography; to enable a history of film cultures that is both
diverse and differing and not limited to the film text or reception only. Film
history includes both production and reception in which plans, policy, dis-
cussions, viewing and programming are integral parts. In essence, then,
film history is the constant intersections between people and institutions.
No more, no less.

Works cited
Andersson, L.G., Sundholm, J. and Söderbergh Widding, A. (2006), ‘I skuggan av
spelfilmen: Svensk experimentell film,’ in Söderbergh Widding (ed.), Konst som
rörlig bild, Stockholm: Langenskjöld/SAK, pp. 15–94.
Bordwell, D. (1997), On the History of Film Style, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Cubitt, S. (2004), The Cinema Effect, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Elsaesser, T. (2004), ‘The New Film History as Media Archaeology’, Cinémas, 14:
2/3, pp. 75–114.
Foucault, M. (1989), The Archaeology of Knowledge, London: Routledge.
Gunning, T. (1990), ‘Towards a Minor Cinema: Fonoroff, Herwitz, Ahwesh, Lapor,
Khlar and Solomon’, Motion Picture 3: 1–2, pp. 2–5.

Amateur and avant-garde: minor cinemas and public sphere in 1950s Sweden 217
SEC_5_3_06-Andersson_080037 1/15/09 8:06 PM Page 218

Habermas, J. (1991), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.
Hansen, M. (1991), Babel and Babylon. Spectatorship in American Silent Film,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
James, D.E. (2005), The Most Typical Avant-Garde: History and Geography of Minor
Cinemas in Los Angeles, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Laurout, E. (1956), ‘Swedish Cinema – Classic Background and Militant
Avantgarde’, Film Culture, 2: 4, pp. 18–20.
Maltby, R. (2007), ‘How Can Cinema History Matter More?’, Screening the Past, 22,
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/screeningthepast/22/board-richard-maltby.html.
Accessed 22 January 2008.
Negt, O. and Kluge, A. (1993), Public Sphere and Experience. Toward an Analysis of the
Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere, Minnesota: University of Minnesota
Press.
Törnblom, O. (1955), ‘Vart går svensk smalfilm?’ Foto, 12.
Weiss, P. (1956), Avantgardefilm, Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand 1956.
Zimmermann, P. (1995), Reel Families: A Social History of Amateur Film, Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.

Suggested citation
Andersson, L.G., & Sundholm, J. (2008), ‘Amateur and avant-garde: minor
cinemas and public sphere in 1950s Sweden’, Studies in European Cinema 5: 3,
pp. 207–218, doi: 10.1386/seci.5.3.207/1

Contributor details
John Sundholm is Senior Lecturer in Film Studies at Karlstad University, Sweden
and Reader in Cultural Analysis at Åbo Akademi University, Finland. Contact:
John Sundholm, Film Studies, Faculty of Arts and Education, Karlstad University,
SE-65188 Karlstad, Sweden.
E-mail: John.sundholm@kau.se
Lars Gustaf Andersson is Senior Lecturer and Reader in Film Studies at Lund
University, Sweden. Contact: Lars Gustaf Andersson, Film Studies, Centre for
Languages and Literature, Lund University, SE-22100 Lund, Sweden.
E-mail: lars_gustaf.andersson@litt.lu.se
Recent books: Gunvor Nelson and the Avant-Garde (2003, ed.); Memory Work (2005,
co-ed.); Collective Traumas (2007, co-ed.) and forthcoming, co-written with L. G.
Andersson and A. Söderbergh Widding: ‘A History of Swedish Experimental Film
Culture: From Early Animation to Video Art’.

218 Lars Gustaf Andersson and John Sundholm