The Act of Seeing with One's Own Eyes (1971) User Reviews

Gruesome

[jaxelvester · 7/10 · 15 May 2019]

Before I begin this review I must mention that this film is absolutely not for the faint of heart.

---------------------

'The Act of Seeing with One's Own Eyes' was directed by experimental filmmaker Stan Brakhage - arguably one of the most creative and original filmmakers of all time.

This film consists entirely of footage of real life autopsies being performed and as a result is extremely graphic, but is nevertheless an interesting look at the human body and how autopsies are performed.

I should also note that the film is completely silent, which I feel only adds to the uneasy feeling while watching.

Overall, I recommend this to anyone interested in this subject matter or film in general who can stomach 31 minutes of corpses having autopsies performed on them.

7/10

Not at all Brakhage's usual style, thought provoking and meditative

[runamokprods · 7/10 · 15 November 2013]

The titles comes from the literal translation for the Greek word 'Autopsy". And that's exactly what this film is . 32 minutes of intense, hand-held photographing of several autopsies in extremely explicit detail.

While the film is, by nature, shocking, and sometimes hard to watch, it's far from exploitational or sensationalistic. It invites us to meditate on life, death, the body, what miracles we all are, how fragile we all are, how alone we all are in the end, and yet how alike we all are. What is a human? What were these people like in life? Are all we are really just the blobby masses of brain we see being removed, leaving only empty skull cavities? Why is the film stomach turning? Why is it so hard to look at what is inside us all? Brakhage raises all these questions, and they are valuable and unsettling to consider.

That said, for me, the film could have been shorter. It started to feel repetitive, which I'm sure was part of the intent (watching ourselves become inured to images that only minutes earlier seemed deeply disturbing), but there was a point near the end where I started to feel I had gotten what I was going to already, including that last idea.

A natural meeting with death

[runara94 · 8/10 · 13 January 2017]

Most of the time I'm not really all that much a fan of Brakhage's "live action"-films. Generally, I feel they lack the evocative and creative elements of his hand-painted or more abstract films. This film though, was very engaging and interesting for several reasons. While many of Brakhage's films deal with the concept of vision and perception, very few of them incorporate standard first-person perspectives. They tend to take a more irregular and perhaps chaotic approach to the very activity of seeing and how Brakhage shows things in his "live action"-films are rarely how one would normally perceive it in the real world. His films do give different perspectives though, I think, to show the nature of things and aspects of life in a new way. And this one is a very good example of just that.

"The Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes." A genius title that is so multifaceted in this context. Firstly, it's the direct translation of the world "autopsy" which this film, on the surface level, is about. Secondly, it seems to be an important guiding sentence, not only for this film, but for much of Brakhage's work. Regardless of what Brakhage had in mind when making his films, I think anyone who watch them put their own meaning to it. They see with their own eyes and thus gives it meaning. This film is so much more than just an experimental take on documenting the work of pathologists though. Watching it, one is placed face to face with death. One is placed face to face with people working with the dead, all the time. Their working days are surrounded by death. I think this picture can get one to know death better, look it in the eye and accept its inevitable presence. Driven by curiosity, the camera shows in great detail every part of the human body being weighted, dissected, seemingly being totally shred to pieces. At times it's unsettling to watch. But then you take a step back and think about the purpose of it all. This is a serious practice, advanced and perfected through centuries of development. We see craftsmen, doing the work that probably very few of us would ever want to do or even think about. And in the end, what they do is a benefit for the humankind as much as whatever anyone do.

It's all very natural. The things shown that we may find repulsive and disgusting, is what we all are made of. And Brakhage's quick, unusually explorative style highlights this in a very admirable way. The lack of sound of course just keeps the focus entirely on the dead human body, torn apart with deep respect.

Natural causes

[ackstasis · 9/10 · 27 January 2011]

Perhaps I'm misattributing my own scientific, atheistic tendencies, but I've found that many of Stan Brakhage's early films seem to argue for Man as an animal, an organic vessel with primitive urges. 'Window Water Baby Moving (1959)' documented the act of parturition in unflinching detail, depicting childbirth, not as the "miracle" suggested in more romantic sources, but as a perfectly natural, albeit remarkable, mammalian event. 'Thigh Line Lyre Triangular (1961)' did something similar, but this time clouded by the subjectivity of human perception. 'Mothlight (1963)' likened humans to moths, attracted to the flickering lights of a cinema screen as an insect is to a lightbulb. No film achieves this aim more effectively than the blunt, cheerless silence of 'The Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes (1971).'

The film's title is a literal translation of the Greek word from which "autopsy" is derived. The 32-minute film was photographed at the Allegheny Coroner's Office in Pittsburgh, and documents the routine dissection of cadavers. This isn't for the faint-hearted. Brakhage often zooms in for shaky, unclear close- ups of the patients' bodily organs, removing the viewer's customary frame of reference, and leaving abstract images that are unsettlingly disconnected from our everyday experience. Skin is peeled back from the anonymous faces, organs are removed. The camera occasionally lingers on the patients' genitalia. In life, these were organs of sexual attraction, upon which so much importance was placed; now we see that they are merely insignificant pieces of flesh. Only death, it seems, can bring such things into perspective.

As a zoology student, I've dissected frogs, pigeons, rats. The internal layout of a rat isn't all that different from that of a human (except, most noticeably, for the testicond gonads). At the end of the autopsy procedure, we are left with an empty vessel. Everything that makes us human – emotion, intelligence, culture – is regulated by the brain, and, once that dies, we're just another conglomeration of organic molecules. Indeed, were we ever anything else? 'The Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes' was not an easy nor enjoyable film to watch, but it did force me to see the true state of the human condition: that we're animals, nothing more, and that ultimately we're all destined for the operating table.

A chilling deconstruction of the human form on film.

[Smith568 · 10/10 · 19 January 1999]

Shot by Mr. B in a busy metropoliton morgue. The recently deceased are prepared for embalming by technicians we barely see. Hands wearing rubber gloves open torsos with scalpels. Heads are opened and brains are removed. Real people are pulled apart and thrown away. Who were they? Who are we? Grainy 16mm color stock. Available light. Moderately long lenses. No sound. No music. Silence.

A Stan Brakhage film about autopsy and dissection is at first, weird, but gradually becomes strangely natural.

[LLAAA4837 · 13 June 2006]

Now obviously, this film may sound silly. The film itself is basically a 40 minute film without narrative or opinion. It is simply a film depicting autopsy on dead bodies. At first this sounds gross and disgusting, but in reality, the skin of dead bodies are really nothing much other than dirt, or at least soon to be. The idea of this being gross can be pulled out of the fact that these bodies were once alive. Yes, we see images of the insides of their bodies. We see their brains and skull. We see the cuts being placed on their skin and then being opened to reveal a massive doorway to intestines, bone, blood,liver, veins, and other things. We do not know what kinds of things that these bodies did when they were alive and moving. We are not even shown what their facial features are like really. We just see their bodies being opened and examined. Stan Brakhage, an experimental filmmaker, doesn't consider that his audience may want to know these things. Or maybe he does but is not interested enough to show us. This way, we can leave our concerns behind and hope to get something out of these gruesome things. We may or may not, but the idea of this sort of meaning is enough to watch it more than once, if not to see if we react or see something differently.

(I watched this film as part of the DVD short film collection of Stan Brakhage entitled, BY BRAKHAGE: AN ANTHOLOGY.)

Brakhage's artistic display of color and editing.

[greeceonmyshirt · 10/10 · 21 April 2005]

This film is a truly artistic mastery of the form. Brakhage has succeeded in taking images, that at times can be gruesome, and combined them into a dance of sorts. His mastery of camera movement and editing have created a work that despite it's grotesque imagery, is exciting to look at. The vivid colors, and smooth motion he achieved have a soothing feeling to the viewer, rather than shocking. Through his elegance behind the camera, Brakhage manages to captivate the viewer, not with the images that he shows, rather with the pacing and and style of his work. The choice of no soundtrack either, adds to this trance-like effect experienced from this film. Overall a 10 rating and a masterpiece of Avant-Garde Cinema.

Artsy Autopsy Film...

[EVOL666 · 4/10 · 5 December 2007]

Personally, I didn't really gain a whole lot from THE ACT OF SEEING WITH ONE'S OWN EYES. I've noticed a lot of really highly rated reviews on here for the film, and I'm kinda surprised. Maybe I missed something that other reviewers felt "moved" by but I found the film pretty tedious and basically pointless.

The "action" of the film is a bunch of autopsy footage that is filmed in an "art-house" style - lots of extreme close-ups, weird editing, etc...and with no sound or dialogue.

I guess THE ACT OF SEEING WITH ONE'S OWN EYES could be considered a study of human anatomy, or maybe (if you really wanna dig a little) some sort of comment on the fragility of humanity or whatever - but I personally found it to be a bunch of semi-interesting but ultimately dull autopsy footage. If that's your thing, then this will be a winner for you. As for me - I've seen more interesting ER footage. Not a "bad" film, as it isn't really a "film" in any traditional sense - I just found nothing really notable about it - 4/10.

It's one of the best!

[info-526 · 9/10 · 19 December 2002]

I've seen a few films like that. For example "Aftermath" from spain etc. But this one - it's finally after 32 years the best one. You hear no sound, no noise, nothing. Your imagination does it for you. The pictures we see are both: beautiful and awful. If you had the chance to see it - take it!!

Not art

[Horst_In_Translation · 2/10 · 13 July 2015]

This is a silent short film that director Stan Brakhage made in his late 30 roughly 45 years ago when he was pretty much in the middle of his life and career. It runs for slightly over half an hour and shows us all the atrocities you would expect to see in a morgue. I may be slightly biased here, because I am not the biggest fan of the director in general, but I like his kaleidoscope-like short movies if they do not run for too long. This one here is actually the opposite. It runs far too long and includes nothing even remote artistic. I wish they would not have let Brakhage inside. He made a film on the birth of his first child and now we see he also made a movie about death. Quite the contrast and these two are among his most known films for a reason I guess. But really, I do not want to see genitals of dead people from pretty close. This is a repulsive film. Not recommended at all.

Mixed Feelings

[Zen Bones · 21 May 2004]

I was somewhat disappointed by this film because I expected to see a full autopsy being performed from start to finish. In his interview, Brakhage said that he chose not to use any weird effects with the material he shot because one doesn't need metaphor for something so primal. Yet his way of shooting and editing his footage made me feel like there was a great deal of manipulation involved. This was not an objective look at the human body. What we got was a mishmash of body parts being filmed so close up, and shot and edited with so much motion, one can barely tell what one is looking at. Although I'd seen somewhat similar stuff in "The Re-Animator", I did find the shots of brain autopsies fascinating, especially the way that one's scalp skin is peeled back so much that it covers the entire face, making us look truly alien (one imagines that H.R. Giger saw a few autopsies before creating his aliens). Still, very few shots of the brain, and we see no shots of them being dissected. I consider the human brain to be the most fascinating thing in the universe so I was disappointed. I also resented the shots early in the film of victims who obviously died by violent means. I suppose some viewers like the exterior shots of the autopsies because it makes them try to guess who these people were and how they came to such grisly deaths. But that to me is kind of like the junk one can see in those Mondo Cane type movies. It's sensationalist and exploitive and completely ruins one's sense of objectivity. I preferred the actual shots of the autopsies that simply allowed one to see the glorious pulp that meticulously keeps us functioning every hour of every day. The film excels brilliantly at that level though as I said, there was not any cognitive approach to displaying the organs. One can interpret Brakhage's films in any way they see fit, but I'm guessing that either he wanted to create an impressionist view of life through its ultimate mortality, or he is just another hack who prefers exploitation and sensationalism over reality. I appreciated the film for what it did show, but in my opinion, the inside of us human beings is fascinating enough without dancing lenses and choppy editing obscuring it. Someone should have told Brakhage he can't top God.

Wow, such amazing special effects by Tom Savini, right?... please tell me it's so, right??

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 12 September 2017]

The power of The Act of Seeing with One's Own Eyes is the fact that Stan Brakhage gives no soundtrack to this and there is no "plot" to speak of, despite the fact that if one wanted to be technical this is a documentary - we are getting documented, on film, every slicing open of flesh and measuring of limbs and draining of blood and cutting into skulls to remove brains of multiple human cadavers - so that we can think for ourselves. There is something to be said for that, that you can be sitting at home or, if one gets the chance in a theater (I didn't, I had the Criterion disc on a quiet day at home without air conditioning), and have these images coming one after the other, and being left with one's own thoughts. You can't escape your mind wandering to what it means to be dead, or to be alive, or how one takes for granted how flesh is so easy to peel and cut and strip away and that, yes, we are all the same underneath (of all things that final title card at the end of Barry Lyndon came to mind, "Rich or poor... they're all equal now").

Certainly it's not an "easy" film to watch, and it shouldn't be, but it's not without some precedent I think for people watching it who, for example, went to some kind of science or biology class in school where there were dissections of animals. You know what it's like to be there with the flesh and that this thing that may have once had life is in front of you ready to be poked and prodded and that you'll be quizzed on how many organs it has and so on. What's different is that they are human beings, naked to us (literally) and that since we are alive and they're not we are bearing witness via Brakhage's camera. And ultimately it's... well, what IS the point? To be "grossed" out? To be unnerved?

To be... desensitized to it? It's a good thing to check out the interview with Brakhage on the Criterion disc as he talks about how he made the movie around the time he was forty, and was thinking more and more about how much he really was afraid of dying, and that seeing dead bodies might give him... something to confront, perhaps? That it wouldn't be such an abstract concept like, here is what *Happens To You* after you die and you're on the gurney. But it's interesting to note he mentions that he was made queasy seeing it all, got on with the act of doing what a director does which is to see, but that if a child was brought in he might not be able to take it. I wonder if other audiences watching this over the decades since would have, either. This didn't cross my mind, oddly enough, as there was enough to see right in front of me.

I think that aside from the basic viscera of seeing these bodies torn asunder, the organs peeled out, the morticians and operators cleaning out the skulls and the bodies and that we actually don't get good looks at the people's faces (perhaps that by design for Brakhage - you can learn from the flesh, but the face won't tell you anything now since the brain is dead)... there's excellent filmmaking here. Unlike some of the other Brakhage shorts I've seen - and it's maybe a good idea to see things like Cat's Cradle or Dog Star Man or Window Baby Water Moving before coming to this - this is shot in clear focus, he doesn't lose the frame (at least too much, I'm sure when the first skull is cracked open and we get the first brain there is a moment it's a blur, as if he can barely see it and get's cross-eyed), and the editing is kinetic and energetic. If he stays on an image for more than five seconds it's so we can take something in, like a body part, a leg, a genital, a fly on a toe roaming around or the dripping of blood.

This is to say, there *is* a story here, but it's part of an experimental narrative of less telling us a story that has beginning-middle-end, but about the process that goes into the tearing into body parts. I can't emphasize enough that it is not the easiest thing to sit through, but at the same time Brakhage doesn't sensationalize anything, it's not like he pumps up heavy metal music or something sinister or ominous to go with the imagery. It's simply... here it is, here's what happens to us, whether we die of "Natural Causes" or a bullet wound or in a fire, we're all on these tables and have to be *seen* by others, and that the act itself is staggering.

I don't know if it makes me any more or less comforted or less afraid of dying after all is said and done. But it is an experience unlike any other, and Brakhage as a filmmaker gives us something that didn't exist before and, really, can't be quite duplicated.

Beautiful and disturbing

[patrouillie · 9/10 · 13 July 2002]

A beautifully shot film. Suddenly you realise that you are looking at bits of people, an empty skull. A doctor speaking calmly in a microphone, with a bloodstain. The fact that there is no sound makes it even more impressive. Disturbing but fascinating.

My Fave Film!

[starskull · 10/10 · 17 March 2003]

When asked what my favorite film is, TAOSWOOE is always my response. I saw it several times in film school, and each was a unique experience. For those who haven't seen it, it is a silent color film about 30 minutes long, documenting an autopsy room. The cinematography is absolutely stunning -- the colors are gorgeous, the framing is beautiful. The lack of a sound track, to me, means that the audience becomes the soundtrack. Watching autopsy footage can be very uncomfortable for many -- regardless of your thoughts on death. This discomfort comes out in the audience through repositioning in the seat, coughing or sighing, even laughing. I have tried to find this for years in a version I could take home, although it truly is a theatrical experience. If you are lucky enough to have the opportunity to view it, don't miss it.

shocking at first, annoying at middle part, u puking in the end ;)

[angrysanchez · 5/10 · 21 February 2006]

When I started watching that film i almost had to puke... consider yourself as a tough guy, after watching the first ten minutes ask yourself again. You will see how bodies are devoured(wrong word but it fits!)completely and all organs are removed by people who seem to can not be shocked by anything. After I saw the first brain being pulled out I had to puke, really!!! The Movie is complete silenced but its logical when you refer to the title. The Viewer shall concentrate on what he is seeing, not being disturb by Audios(by the way you wouldn't want to hear anything ;) ). Wheather he finds it offensive or not he has to deal with it, everybody in his own way.

Why making such a movie? Very difficult questions i think, because on one hand such offensive movies are art (art can be shocking too remember this;) ) on the other side such movies have a destructive character and dangerous character for soft minded Viewers(its nothing bad u just save your sweet dreams;) )

But the fact that u see this strong pictures makes u remember that every second of live is most important and can not be replaced.

I didn't see other Films from Stan Brakhage, so I don't know if he only did such strong movies, nevertheless I would recommend this movie to people that haven't seen enough offensive things in their lives and would warn everybody who cant fit such pictures with their ethical beliefs.

Their are sure more entertaining movies out there, but there aren't enough movies so experimental and powerful in breaking "reality tunnels " (Robert Anton Wilson) like this one.

For all German readers i recommend the book "Film as subversive Kunst" for a complete review and for many other shocking(?) movies

Very grisly, but very interesting at the same time.

[brianberta · 9/10 · 22 September 2022]

Very grisly, but at the same time, the camerawork (framing, close-ups, pan outs, etc.) is top notch and, as a result, it remains interesting from beginning to end. Brakhage captures all kinds of great shots which would be just as technically impressive if he depicted non-grisly imagery. When a film has this much texture to the camerawork, it's indeed something special, even when autopsy footage is being depicted.

As an aside, if you plan on watching this film, it can be watched for free on YouTube and Vimeo (at the time of writing this review). I recommend muting the soundtrack. No music is required for this short, in my opinion.

The act of making films with one's own eyes closed.

[cogs · 31 October 2004]

I know it is a violation of the terms and conditions to focus on other user-comments but 'The Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes' demands an examination that acknowledges reception above all other interpretative modes. I find it fascinating that many of the respondents interpret this film as something more than simply the photographing of a number of autopsies. First, this demonstrates a desire to bestow meaning on anything, whether it is elicited or not. Secondly, it exhibits a desire to deify anything created by an acknowledged artist-in this case avant-garde filmmaker Stan Brakhage-regardless of its true material worth. Ultimately, I think this is the wrong way to approach this film, which is simply the filming of a series of autopsies, nothing more, nothing less. Brakhage has stated that the metaphorical hermeneutic code is endemic in the material. This is true, but the notion that a dead body being stripped of its components says anything significant about the nature of life and humanity is highly contentious. Brakhage invests no artistic design in his film; he simply photographs the morgue workers in operation. Yes, we see imagery that is at turns repulsive and often saddening, but would we imagine anything else. It might be argued that, given the film's title, Brakhage is trying to demystify death. However, films like these are de rigueur in medical classes and therefore this 'scene' is not hidden from the world. People actually deal with it everyday. Those who have no exposure to the dead or the human anatomy will most likely have no interest in the material. So, once again, what is this film's worth? It is not artistic (despite other users trying to consign their own aesthetic design on the film), it is not useful, and it fails as a demystification of death or the human body. Ultimately, 'The Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes' is a failure as a film and offers only limited interest as a curio.

a short film about death

[framptonhollis · 10/10 · 11 January 2017]

Brakhage's brief documentary film "The Act of Seeing with One's Own Eyes" is one of the most graphic, explicit, and disturbing films of all time. The film lacks narration, interviews, or even any sound at all (there isn't even a soundtrack). However, all of this works to the film's advantage. The explicit autopsy footage that we witness is made even more horrifying due to the lack of sound, because it forces us to pay even closer attention to these disturbing images. As the film goes on, it get more and more graphic in nature-viewers may feel nausea while experiencing this shocking masterpiece, some may even faint!

Why IS this film a "masterpiece", then? All it is is explicit autopsy footage. Well, I love this film for a few reasons...

Among them is that it strips the human body down to a point of pathetic fragility that no other film has ever accomplished. Human parts are actually being exposed in an in your face, but also surprisingly subtle manner. At times, the film is also quite sad and emotional. It is hard to explain exactly, but seeing this film for the second time made me feel more depressed than disturbed. The images of slowly dripping blood resemble tears, they reminded me that these bodies used to be humans. Living, breathing, ordinary human beings, just like the rest of us. Now that they have faced the unfortunate fate of death they're now being torn apart for all the world to see.

Also, Brakhage's overall style is quite unique and appealing. He purposely makes the film feel gritty using a lot of shaky camera movements and Grindhouse-esque cinematography (which manages to be surprisingly pleasing in its own way). Certain choices in editing and filming make the film increasingly emotional, terrifying, gripping, and fascinating. This is among Brakhage's finest.

an unflinching look at mortality

[gunslinger861 · 10/10 · 30 November 2010]

now i have been combing the underground for the better part of ten years and i must say that i am hard pressed to find anything that would stop me dead in my tracks. Such things have only occurred to me a handful of times and when they did it was only for the fact that i was either greatly disturbed or down right offended. however as hard as it is for that to happen it is even more difficult to divide me on a film. this film did just that but before i go on let me catch up anyone unfamiliar with this film.

The film, if you can even call it that. It is not a film in any traditional sense, even calling it a documentary to me is pushing it. to me documentation seems more appropriate. The film is nothing more then thirty minutes of several autopsy procedures shown in absolute graphic detail with absolutely no soundtrack what so ever.

we are shown bodies undressed, searched for lesion's and such, there clothes are inventoried and the bodies are systematically cut up. No detail is spared. The viewer is subjected to bodies being cut open,organs being removed, bodily fluids being extracted, skin being peeled back and bone being hacked through.

At first i was a little bit disgusted with the inner workings of the dead but after a certain amount time has passed i started have the thought that although these were once people they now were nothing more then raw material...not to sound to nihilistic.

I guess what divided me was the fact that although the film was grotesque it was honest. Probably one of the most honest pieces of film i have ever seen. although graphic it was not exploitative nor was it artful as many have claimed. It was exactly what it was, nothing more nothing less. That i can respect.

what i found ironic was the fact that when i first watched this film i was reminded of nacho cearda's aftermath. on the DVD during an interview jorg buttgereit even asks mr. cearda if he was influenced by this film. what i found interesting is with Stan breakages other works like window water baby moving among others is that especially with said film is one captures the being of life and the other captures the end.

the point i guess I'm trying to make is that as uncomfortable a subject as mortality is, the point of Stan breakage's work was to capture life on film. and death is a part of life. to quote metallica " to live is to die"

Visualization to the next level.

[invaliduser · 24 January 2002]

This 30 minute documentary on three human autopsies is one of the most disturbing yet intruiging things that I have ever seen on film. If you can imagine it, they show it. Everything but the corpses faces are shown. But I am willing to bet that if Brakhage was allowed to show the faces he would have. This movie delves into the idea of human curiosity and vision like never done before. A thinker.

beautiful

[HansenX · 1 December 2001]

Though many may find this film repulsive, I find it utterly beautiful because of the certain sadness it evokes. The anonymity of the people we see being cut up make us more aware of how fragile human life can be. The lack of sound only adds to the poignancy of the film.