DbcultAccessing Vault...
7/10
Archivist John
Senior Editor
A definitive 7/10 rating for a film that redefined the boundaries of cult cinema. Wachsexperimente remains a cornerstone of transgressive art.
Short answer: Yes, but only if you are willing to abandon your need for a plot in favor of a sensory hallucination. This is not entertainment in the sense of a popcorn flick; it is a visual baptism for those tired of the predictable beats of mainstream cinema.
This film is for the art students, the history buffs, and the dreamers who want to see what the 'soul' of a physical object looks like when it is sliced into a thousand pieces. It is absolutely not for anyone looking for a linear story, character development, or traditional dialogue.
1) This film works because it captures a unique, organic texture that digital tools still struggle to replicate, providing a tactile sense of depth and movement.
2) This film fails because its lack of structure can feel repetitive to the uninitiated, acting more as a series of technical demos than a cohesive emotional journey.
3) You should watch it if you want to see the literal foundation of modern motion graphics and visual music without the filter of modern software.
Absolutely. In an era where we are drowning in pixel-perfect CGI, there is something profoundly grounding about seeing physical wax being manipulated. It’s visceral. It’s messy. It’s human.
While films like Reputation were exploring the heights of social drama, Fischinger was in a basement playing with a meat slicer and colored paraffin. The result is a film that feels more modern than many talkies from the same decade. It challenges the viewer to find meaning in movement alone.
To understand Wachsexperimente, you have to understand the 'Wax Slicing Machine.' Fischinger wasn't just drawing on cells; he was creating a three-dimensional sculpture and then destroying it, slice by slice, to create time. This isn't just animation; it's a form of temporal sculpture.
Consider the sequence about three minutes in where the darker wax begins to consume the lighter shades. It looks like a solar eclipse or a cellular mutation. There is a weight to the movement that you don't get in hand-drawn animation of the era, like Nina, the Flower Girl. The wax has gravity. It has resistance.
The pacing is frantic. Because the slices are so thin, the 'growth' of the shapes happens at a jittery, nervous speed. It reflects the anxiety and the electric energy of the Weimar Republic. It’s not just art; it’s a time capsule of a man trying to keep up with the speed of his own imagination.
Many critics of the 1920s might have preferred the clear moral arcs of The She Wolf or the dramatic tension of Prestuplenie i nakazanie. But Fischinger’s refusal to tell a story is his greatest weapon. By removing the 'who' and the 'why,' he forces the audience to focus on the 'how.'
It works. But it’s flawed. The flaw lies in the context. Without the musical accompaniment that Fischinger often intended for his work, the silence of these experiments can feel heavy. It’s like looking at a beautiful sheet of music without hearing the notes.
However, I would argue that the silence actually enhances the experience. It allows the viewer to project their own internal rhythm onto the screen. It becomes a Rorschach test in motion. One person sees a flowering garden; another sees a bloody explosion. It’s a mirror for the subconscious.
The cinematography is surprisingly disciplined. Fischinger keeps the camera locked, ensuring that the only variable is the wax itself. This creates a hypnotic effect. The tone is one of clinical wonder. It’s as if we are looking through a microscope at a world that doesn't belong to us.
Compare this to the sprawling, location-based shots in Wonderful London: Flowers of London. While those films seek to capture the reality of the world, Wachsexperimente seeks to create a new reality entirely. The lighting is harsh, emphasizing the waxy texture and the slight imperfections in the material, which only adds to the 'realness' of the abstraction.
The pacing is where the film shows its experimental roots. Some segments linger too long on a single color palette, while others flash by so quickly you barely have time to register the pattern. It’s uneven, yes, but that’s the nature of an experiment. You don't know what the result will be until the wax is sliced.
Here is a debatable opinion: Wachsexperimente is a body horror film. When you watch the way the wax folds and collapses, it looks disturbingly like muscle tissue or internal organs. There is a carnality to it that is absent from the clean lines of Fischinger’s later geometric works.
This 'fleshy' quality makes it far more uncomfortable than something like The Sleepyhead. It’s not a cozy watch. It’s a film that demands you acknowledge the physical world’s capacity for chaos. The wax is beautiful, but it’s also slightly repulsive in its fluidity. It reminds us that we, too, are just layers of matter that can be sliced away.
Pros:
- Revolutionary technical achievement.
- Hypnotic, meditative visual quality.
- Influenced decades of animation, including Disney’s Fantasia.
- Pure, unadulterated creative expression.
Cons:
- Can be visually exhausting.
- No narrative hook to keep casual viewers interested.
- Some segments feel redundant.
If you compare this to His Majesty, the American, the difference is jarring. One is a product of the studio system, designed for mass appeal. The other is a product of a singular, obsessive mind. Wachsexperimente holds up better because it isn't tied to the fashions or social mores of the 1920s. It is timeless because it is abstract.
While a film like Fighting the Flames relies on the spectacle of its era, Fischinger’s spectacle is internal. It’s about the physics of the image. That never goes out of style. It’s the same reason people still go to galleries to look at Rothko paintings. The emotion is in the color and the form, not the story.
Fischinger was a man out of time. Watching these wax experiments today, you can see the DNA of everything from 1960s psychedelic light shows to the liquid metal effects in 90s blockbusters. He was doing with a knife and a block of wax what we now do with supercomputers.
Is it a 'masterpiece'? That word is overused. Let’s call it a 'essential anomaly.' It is a film that shouldn't exist, but we are much richer for its presence. It challenges the very definition of what cinema can be. It tells us that movies don't have to be about people; they can be about the very fabric of reality.
Wachsexperimente is a jarring, beautiful, and deeply strange journey into the heart of matter. It is a mandatory watch for anyone who claims to love the medium of film. It’s not easy, and it’s not always 'fun,' but it is undeniably important. It is a visual symphony played on a meat slicer, and it sounds—and looks—like the future.
IMDb 5.8
1925
Community
Log in to comment.
