Why was the Charles Theater important for the development of “underground film” in New York City?

Why was the Charles Theater important for the development of “underground film” in New York City?

This theater was the rare venue that didn’t allow censure of its art/films or of its film makers. The Charles (Baudelaire) Theater presented the film underground with the first, semi permanent exhibition space for truly Avant-garde film especially ones from America and Europe. The accent was on creativity and not on ticket sales. This was also one of the only places in the U.S. that a first time director such as Cassavetes, Brian De Palma, Warhol and Stanley Kubrick could get their films shown in a big city. The theater was fundamental in introducing film movements like Italian neo-realism and Baudelariean Cinema to America as well as being the location for the Filmmakers Festival.
Jonas Mekas one of the prime movers of the Charles Theater once commented on the Baudelariean Cinema style, “These artists are without inhibitions, sexual or any other kind." His statement was a reaction to the bland whitewashed American cinema of the day. In this time period American films and America was consistently conservative. The critics as well as the organized theater operators of the day systematically shunned any film that was considered, “Out of the Box,” and not up to the United States Motion Picture Production Code of 1930. The nascent counter culture of the early 1960’s was greatly influenced by these films. The theater was a hub of/for uncensored creativity for filmmakers and others (Jazz music, experimental live theater) which greatly influenced mainstream American film. The most important aspect/contribution of the Charles Theater /Mekas in my view is that the way was shown to independent filmmakers on how to make the truly independent film. That it was possible to by pass the big studio and achieve an audience. It made it possible for later movies like “Easy Rider” to be made without studio backing and control. These independent films were deeper in emotional content and were much more attuned to the social/political consciousness of the times. They dealt with real issues that confronted people on a gut level. We recognized ourselves with warts and blemishes in these lower budget films as being flawed but genuine. The Charles Theater showed audiences and future filmmakers that there is validity in films that have nothing to do with the formula/happy ending so prevelent in American film.
Mekas held open screenings at the theater looking for new talented directors/filmmakers. This was turned into a monthly social event with much success. By doing this he turned some audience members into critics and others into filmmakers. The theater transforms into a "Great Good Place" where the utopian ideology of the audience being a part of the energy of filmmaking itself is born. They are not the passive audience pawns of the films but are the parts and pieces that compose the film experience itself. The audience creates the film and owns it for it own sake. The Charles Theater manifested film making into an inclusive community of like-minded artist through freedom and equality. Films and filmmaking were drawn together as a single endeavor.
This equality also spelled the end for the Charles Theater. No one could tell who was the audience or the filmmaker so no one could sell the ticket to pay for the cost of business.


What were some of the characteristics of “Baudelariean Cinema”? Like the poets of the Symbolist Movement Charles Baudelaire inspired there was a desire to set free techniques of versification in film. Filmmakers wanted more artistic control with film style. That is they wanted a more free verse style of filmmaking. One that wasn’t tied down with restrictive production techniques. The director is the auteur. As in Charles Baudelaire’s poetry subject matter was open to each film maker’s interpretation. Like Charles Baudelaire’s life these taboo subjects were about drugs, sex, violence and decadence in the modern world. This cinema wants to evoke the audience rather than to simply entertain. It can be said that these films were the antithesis of the mainstream movies of the day. These films had very little inhibition and dealt with people on an almost primal level. These films attempted to be a truly free art form in which the point is to move the audience emotionally instead of simply profiting from them monetarily.