Witch's Cradle (1944)

So much average

Expected more

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

This short film is Maya Deren's second, made after her "Meshes of the Afternoon" which is probably her most popular piece. Again it is done in a mysterious and dreamlike fashion, which is to be expected of Deren's work. Apparently it is also unfinished, for some reason. Several of the director's movies are unfinished, so the footage is obviously unedited with no title cards at all. Note that the artist Marcel Duchamp, (the man who signed a urinal and called it art!) took part in it as well. The director supposedly does not appear in it at all, as she did in many of her films, (although isn't that her sitting at the table with Duchamp??). I have to wonder why this was never completed because what we've got is actually very good.How could you describe a short like this? I find it hard. The film takes place in a dark room, and it's basically a series of shots of string and people. There's this one woman who has a witch's symbol on her head who keeps looking around. Much of the film is a lot of camera angles that show the string looped around the room, running over people's backs and other things. While in a film like this I would normally look for symbolism in the imagery, I think Deren was more trying to make an art film than entwine a narrative. Also, some of the shots are repeated. It is just weird and there are some parts that are random (what's the deal with the beating human heart?). In fact, most of what takes place in the movie is incoherent and there doesn't appear to be any real action going on.I have no idea why it wasn't finished. Maybe Deren had an idea for a new film, or maybe she just was clueless about how to end it. But I like it. An artistic film, and well shot. The bizarre camera angles add a sense of mystery. If you like this kind of filmmaking, then I'd certainly recommend this second effort by Deren. You won't be disappointed.

As all of the filmmaker's works this is a very experimental movie. It runs for 12 minutes and is in black-and-white, also like Maya Deren's other works. She made this one relatively early in her career, during the fateful final days of World War II when Deren was still in her 20s, shortly after her probably most famous "Meshes of the Afternoon". "Witch's Cradle" did not get equally popular. One reason may be that she is not playing the lead character herself this time. The lead actress is Pajorita Matta, but she never appeared in another movie again. Marcel Duchamp, however, who plays the second biggest character has a prolific career in movies and also worked with Deren on other projects. There is no real story in this film here, it's basically a collection of impressions and camera shots who stand on their own. You have to decide for yourself if you like this idea of filmmaking. I myself do not really. Also I cannot really see the film's title in this film's action. Not recommended.