I would agree with this statement. Many experimental films are designed to generate a different kind of audience response, such as curiosity or boredom.
Chris Cunningham's experimental film 'Rubber Johnny' is an extremely elaborate and dark short with no narrative or context. It starts with an extreme, out of focus close up of an inhuman creature. This close up is accompanied by the diegetic sound of the cameraman talking calmly to the creature, and it replying with a series of squeaks and growls, which made me very uncomfortable. The sequence is filmed with a handheld camera and is a long take which gave it a home-made style and realistic effect.
Some expanded films require a specific kind of spectatorship, such as Stan Brakhage's 'Stellar'. The film comprises of hundreds of random flashing images, which were made by hand-painting each film slide. Brakhage then played all of the slides through a camera to create the film. The film has neither diegetic nor non-diegetic sound, yet I found it mesmerising and beautifully abstract whereas other mainstream audiences would find it boring.
Luis Bunuel's 'Un Chien Andalou' was one of the first experimental films. The opening scene features a mid shot of Bunuel himself looking at the moon from a balcony. After a cut to an extreme close up of a woman's eye, he witnesses a cloud pass over the moon, seeming to cut it. The film then cuts to the eye, and Bunuel slicing it with a razor blade. The image of one of the most delicate parts of the human body being sliced is a shocking image and my initial reaction was disgust. The image would have shocked audiences when it was shown and is not one that is easily forgotten.
The dragging scene is one that portrays challenging images to the audience, with the male character shown dragging two ropes ending at pianos with dead donkeys lying on them. The scene is designed to shock the audience, and create a mixed response of confusing and awe. Personally I found it confusing as I could not relate to it.
