One thing about Age d'Or is that for me it is pure cinema released from true narrative. That sort of abstract imagary approach seems much more difficult to swallow in cinema than in any other medium (save perhaps stage plays).
I'm not sure if its because of the illusion of reality that comes with filmed events, or if we have simply been conditioned on filmed stories.
But why is it that walking through a Pollock exhibit seems to be a lot more inviting that watching pure abstract cinema devoid of any NARRATIVE structure (though certainly not without a structure of imagary and ideals)?
Of course the surrealists weren't going for abstract, but rather the undermining of realism by use of absurdity. We are led along with what appears to be a regular narrative, but which is really a trap of nonsensical logic.
Still the point remains that when a film screws with the presentation structure, audiences tend to tune out a lot quicker. Juxtaposition of mismatched images via editing seems far more annoying that when done by placing images side by side in a painting or photograph.
It just seems to me that cinema for some reason begs for a logical narrative structure even though it shouldn't have to be so limited.
In short, I half loved, half hated Age d'Or.
