By Robert Bellissimo
Where does the documentary and feature film begin and end in “Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One”? Does it even matter?
In 1968, Filmmaker William Greaves put together a multiracial cast and crew to shoot screen tests in Central Park in New York City for a feature film. We have a crew filming the actors and a crew filming the cast and crew as they shoot the screen tests. What winds up happening is tension, conflict, chaos and a crew that challenges the directors methods. Any one who has ever worked on a low-budget film can relate to this film. We see technical difficulties happening, cops asking for permits, an alcoholic homeless man speaking the truth about political corruption in America and giving up on fighting it, Actors not getting along particularly well, the crew unaware of what the director wants and a director trying to experiment with his story and shooting style.
William Greaves, who was a documentary filmmaker, was challenging the crew to think outside the box. He knew that if he set things up in a certain way that it would lead to conflict. Greaves understood that the cast and crew were used to the conventional Hollywood way of working, where everyone awaits direction and wants to be told what to do. What happens when the director only gives you vague directions and wants you to lead by your own energies? In this case, we get a frustrated crew who come together behind the directors back, and talks out their feelings amongst each other about being confused by what Greaves wants and wondering if he knows what he’s doing at all. This leads to a lot of humorous situations, as well as political undertones. In the 60’s, we had people protesting the Vietnam war and fighting for civil rights. People were challenging the establishment and so this feature film, in a way, is a metaphor for those struggles. It encourages people to stand up for what’s right. In this case, stand up to the director who may just be wasting everyone’s time. He does everything from filming a woman in the park with big breasts, to having the actors sing their dialogue.
On the flip side of all of this, the film is encouraging creatives to be creative and contribute to every single project they work on. To get involved and not just await orders. In a way what Greaves is doing as the director in the film is brilliant, bold and brave. He is giving everyone the licence to contribute to the creative process. He doesn’t know exactly what he wants other than for people to be spontaneous and to follow their creative energies and instincts in the moment. He wants everyone to be present, alive and interested in what they are exploring within the film.
After the film was complete, William Greaves submitted it to the Cannes Film Festival where the film was rejected. Thinking that his experimental film had failed he put it away until it was discovered in the early 90’s. Many years later he discovered that the projectionist had showed the film out of order. To think that this masterpiece was shelved for nearly a quarter of a century is painful to hear, but thankfully we now have it for the world to see.
William Greaves was an Actor and a member of the Actors Studio in New York. He became a documentary filmmaker and moved to Canada to work for the National Film Board of Canada where he made many documentaries. He was a real artist who had an endless curiosity about life. I encourage everyone to not only see this film, but to see as many of his films as possible. Some are available on the National Film Board Of Canada’s streaming service and this film is on the Criterion Channel.
