Meshes of the Afternoon: Surrealist Filmmaking by Maya Deren
This paper examines Maya Deren and Alexander Hammid's 1943 experimental short film Meshes of the Afternoon, widely regarded as a landmark of American avant-garde cinema. The paper walks through the film's key visual sequences — the ghostly figure, the repeating woman, the transforming key, and the ambiguous dream ending — and discusses how Deren's cinematic techniques, including slow motion, unusual camera angles, and the deliberate blurring of reality and illusion, serve her stated artistic goal of creating a film language independent of theater, literature, and the plastic arts. The paper closes by noting the film's openness to personal interpretation.
- Introduction and Background: Film overview, directors, and historical significance
- Maya Deren's Artistic Vision: Deren's stated goals for experimental cinema
- Scene-by-Scene Visual Analysis: Chronological walkthrough of key film sequences
- Surrealist Effects and Cinematic Techniques: How cinematic effects blur reality and illusion
- Interpretation and Conclusion: Ambiguity and openness to personal interpretation
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its analysis in a direct authorial quote from Deren, anchoring the aesthetic discussion in the filmmaker's own stated intentions rather than pure speculation.
- It follows the film's narrative chronologically, making the scene descriptions easy to track and giving the analysis a clear, logical progression.
- It appropriately acknowledges ambiguity — noting that the film's meaning is "rather vague" — which reflects honest critical engagement rather than over-interpretation.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates textual/visual close reading: it isolates specific moments (the falling key, the ghostly figure's blank face, the multiplying women at the table) and uses them as evidence for broader claims about the film's surrealist style. This technique — selecting concrete examples to support an interpretive argument — is a foundational skill in film and literary analysis.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with contextual background (film title, directors, historical significance, and Deren's 1944 mission statement), moves into a chronological scene walkthrough that serves as the analytical core, and closes with a brief evaluative paragraph on the film's intentional ambiguity. The structure mirrors a standard film review/analysis format: context → description → interpretation.
Introduction and Background
Meshes of the Afternoon was introduced to audiences in 1943 as a short film directed by the husband-and-wife team Maya Deren and Alexander Hammid. The film has been widely considered one of the most compelling works in the surrealist tradition and was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress. Approximately thirteen and a half minutes long, it contains a variety of striking visual effects that challenge conventional narrative filmmaking.
Maya Deren's Artistic Vision
Deren articulated her intentions clearly in a 1944 statement:
"My purpose is to make an experimental motion picture (the physical scope of which is subject to material conditions) in which I will attempt to develop a cinematic art form, originating in the creative potentialities of the movie camera itself, and freed from the influence of other artistic idioms, such as literature, theater, the plastic and pictorial arts." — Maya Deren, 1944
This statement establishes the foundation for understanding the film: Deren sought to create a purely cinematic language, one that owed nothing to pre-existing art forms and instead emerged from the unique capabilities of the camera itself. This ambition places Meshes of the Afternoon squarely within the broader avant-garde film movement of the mid-twentieth century.
Scene-by-Scene Visual Analysis
The film begins with a woman picking up a flower from the sidewalk. Her face is not shown; instead, the camera emphasizes shadows that highlight her movements. Although the scenes initially suggest reality, the movements and actions carry a surreal quality and do not follow a normal routine. This impression is reinforced in the next scene, where a key is dropped and falls down a staircase — yet the manner in which it falls, and in which the woman retrieves it, does not quite seem real. These early moments establish the film's central strategy of blurring the boundary between the ordinary and the uncanny.
One of the subsequent scenes introduces a ghostly figure that appears to hover as it moves away from the camera. The figure's face is completely void of detail — a blank expanse of pure white, as if a piece of white cardboard had been cut out to fill the hood of its cloak. The woman from the earlier scenes chases after this figure and follows it into a dwelling, where she discovers a knife at the bottom of a staircase. Her face is finally revealed, and she is shown hovering up the stairs — an effect that appears to have been achieved through slow motion.
What follows is a disorienting combination of the woman floating and falling, rendered from multiple camera angles. It is deliberately difficult to determine exactly what she is doing; the camera emphasizes unnatural movement over narrative clarity. The film then enters a repeating pattern in which the same woman watches herself chase the ghostly figure. Three versions of the same woman sit down at a table and take turns picking up a key, only for it to reappear each time — until, finally, one woman picks up the key and it transforms into a knife.
The film ultimately suggests that the entire preceding sequence has been a dream. It concludes with a mirror being broken and thrown into the ocean, after which the woman's husband picks up the flower, opens the door, and finds his wife dead in a chair, surrounded by broken glass. This ending reframes everything the viewer has witnessed, consistent with Surrealist interests in the dream state and the unconscious.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.