Hapax Legomena I: Nostalgia (1971) User Reviews

Avant Garde?

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 27 July 2016]

Plot: "Frampton burning slowly his an nostalgia black and white photograph who his taken on a hot plate." Yes, whatever that means.

Actually, the "plot" is very simple: photographs slowly burn on a hot plate while memories of the photos and their subjects are explained to the audience. This makes it a story of memory and family, as well as a bit of poetry... and something of an autobiography of Hollis Frampton for those who want to know more.

One interesting aspect is that the narration, despite presumably being the words of Frampton, is allegedly done by filmmaker Michael Snow. Snow is possibly even more notable than Frampton, often considered one of the greatest Canadian filmmakers, alongside Atom Egoyan and David Cronenberg.

A Frampton Autobiography

[Tornado_Sam · 23 July 2019]

Hollis Frampton's "(nostalgia)"--the first movie in his seven-part film series "Hapax Legomena"--is not so much an experimental film as it is an autobiography that uses simple photographs to share the life of the filmmaker from previous years. The structure of the film is simple in the static composition of the work; the action is very minimal and for the most part non-existent; so it is due to the added narration that the thirty-six minute work becomes a tease with the viewer from the seeming connection between sound and image. Frampton appeals to the viewer's natural assumption--that the sound of the film naturally goes with the image--to execute his joke; and while many might assume as much, those who observe closely will notice that the filmmaker is purposefully playing with the audience through this conclusion.

The premise of "(nostalgia)" is a simple one, in which thirteen different photographs are set on an old-fashioned hotplate only to be burned up, whilst the background to each is presented through Michael Snow's narration (penned by Frampton but read as though read by him). SPOILER THAT SHOULD BE SKIPPED BY THOSE THAT HAVEN'T WATCHED. What many of the reviewers have failed to notice is that the entire film, while sharing the context, actually pranks the unknowing audience by disconnecting what is seemingly connected. The narration provided for one photograph actually corresponds to the photo to be shown next, so that by the end the narrator shares describes to the audience a photograph which was never seen and presumably made up (although some claim that the first picture at the beginning is the one referenced to at the end. Obviously, looking at the one at the beginning, this is false). The film's title lives up to itself, for the masterfully executed reading of Frampton's commentary shares interesting stories and contexts for each photo, making it sound as though the reader (not truly the filmmaker) is nostalgic for the days long gone.

If you have decided to see this interesting film and have heeded the spoiler, then it is for the better. Because of revealing the hidden joke, my review automatically goes against the wishes of the filmmaker in a way which spoils what was meant to stay unvoiced. The joke, which is one of the key concepts of the film in its disconnection of audio and visual aspect, should be revealed only to those who figure it out themselves. It's the film playing the trick and it is the film that needs to explain the punchline, not I in my position as a viewer just as you.

Memory vision and hearing blend in the grey matter

[pthomann · 9/10 · 22 September 2001]

In both this and Zorn's Lemma Hollis rips apart the connection between sound and sight. This movie uses memory to effect the change, Zorn's Lemma uses repetition and minimal plot to achieve similar results.

"You see, they are not destroyed..."

[classicsoncall · 2/10 · 30 October 2017]

I am literally stunned to see that this work has a '7.0' rating on IMDb as I write this. There's nothing more here than a series of thirteen photographs taken by director Hollis Frampton in prior years, and as each is presented, they are laid down on a hot plate grid and one watches as they're slowly consumed by flame and turned into ash. The photographs aren't even that good to begin with. This thing runs for thirty six minutes folks, and much of that can be attributed to an inordinate amount of time spent on the charred remains of each photo. Adding insult to injury, after the first few photos, the off screen narration describing the prints doesn't match up to what you see on screen. One can obviously take advantage of the fast forward button, but then you wouldn't have experienced the torture of having to sit through it. So I tortured myself for the full thirty six minutes so you don't have to. Lest you believe that there's something wrong with an artist destroying his own work, I'll reference Frampton once again as he completes his quote above by adding "...they can be resurrected by rewinding the film". Sorry, once was enough.

Extremely uninteresting

[Horst_In_Translation · 2/10 · 13 May 2016]

"Hapax Legomena I: Nostalgia" already sounds like a film that would not be for general audiences, but maybe only for 1% of cinema-goers. Hollis Frampton made this 35-minute film back in 1971, so it has its 35th anniversary this year. It is possibly his most known and most successful work looking at the inclusion with the National Film Registry. But this is not an indicator of a great film this time. On the contrary, it should give aspiring filmmakers hope that one can make such a mediocre film that has very little camera work and the dialogue feels like random rambling from start to finish, and you can still reach some of the biggest honors with your work. I am generally not too big on Frampton from what I have seen so far, but to me it feels like he hits a new low with this one here. Shocking to see he produced many sequels to this mediocrity (and that's kindly-speaking). Highly not recommended.