The "Slow Cinema" movement

[GoogaMooga]

***BORING FILMMAKERS***

When you are young and first become aware of arthouse and the canon, you may feel a certain compulsion to sit through films that put your patience to the test. You do it out of a sense of duty, not only to yourself, but also to the "artform" that you studiously cultivate in your own little ivory tower. You know the directors of arthouse by their style, that slow-as-molasses, wordy, and plotless way to tell a non-story that has been foisted upon us for decades. We have gotten an endless array of arty-farty films that defy all principles of storytelling, narrative drive, and pleasure. Entertainment is sacrificed in favor of stylistic twaddle and intellectual rigor. Such directors will often have an inflated ego, and are quick to capitalize on the lazy craving for status that is the bane of many film buffs with too much time on their hands and too much focus on their navels.

So if you've got time to kill, if you can't sleep, or if you buy into the arthouse myth, you could give the bores a try. You might in time realize that their films are a con, and then you can get on with your real life.

***TOP 10***

Theo Angelopoulos
Andrej Tarkovsky
Béla Tarr
Michelangelo Antonioni
Terence Malick
Jean-Luc Godard
John Cassavetes
Chantal Akerman
Aleksandr Sokurov
Miklós Jancsó

Greek director Theo Angelopoulos has been called an "icon of the so-called Slow Cinema movement".

[naughty boy]

I don't know much about Angelopoulos or Sokurov, but the others are visionary filmmakers who produced some extraordinary work. Cassavetes, Tarkovsky, Tarr, Godard and Akerman particularly are big favourites. Their films are not always easy to watch, but they're much more rewarding than films made by most directors - certainly those working today.

Yet again you are showing how clueless you are.

[GoogaMooga]

I should have mentioned that I like SOME Cassavetes and SOME Godard. I realize some fans like ALL their work, that's their business.

[GoogaMooga]

Yet again you are showing how clueless you are.

This is the last time I will address you. I know you will carry on stalking and trolling and insulting me till the day I die. Unfortunately for you, I have decided to carry on here, because the pros outweigh the cons. You mean nothing to me - your taste, your person, I don't care one whit about you.

[naughty boy]

Fair enough!





you are completely clueless though

[BARON CORNY DOG]

Yet again you are showing how clueless you are.

This is the last time I will address you. I know you will carry on stalking and trolling and insulting me till the day I die. Unfortunately for you, I have decided to carry on here, because the pros outweigh the cons. You mean nothing to me - your taste, your person, I don't care one whit about you.

And yet, you can't escape the fact that he's correct.
You might as well criticize all paintings that aren't portraits because everyone knows that paintings are supposed to be of people.

[BARON CORNY DOG]

***BORING NOVELISTS***

When you are young and first become aware of "literature" and the canon, you may feel a certain compulsion to sit through books that put your patience to the test. You do it out of a sense of duty, not only to yourself, but also to the "artform" that you studiously cultivate in your own little ivory tower. You know the writers of literature by the appearance of their books and their style, almost always over 100 pages, no illustrations, and endless discursive jaunts that take one away from the story that has been foisted upon us for centuries. We have gotten an endless array of long books with no pictures that defy all principles of storytelling, narrative drive, and pleasure. Entertainment is sacrificed in favor of stylistic twaddle and intellectual rigor. Such writers will often have an inflated ego, and are quick to capitalize on the lazy craving for status that is the bane of many students with too much time on their hands and too much focus on their navels.

So if you've got time to kill, if you can't sleep, or if you buy into the literature myth, you could give the bores a try. You might in time realize that their books are a con, and then you can get on with your real life.

[GoogaMooga]

Apples and oranges, Baron. I am not talking about novels or paintings here, I am not even talking about all slow directors. I am singling out ten directors that I find to be a hard slog. And I even like some of their films.

[naughty boy]

You know the directors of arthouse by their style, that slow-as-molasses, wordy, and plotless way to tell a non-story that has been foisted upon us for decades. We have gotten an endless array of arty-farty films that defy all principles of storytelling, narrative drive, and pleasure. Entertainment is sacrificed in favor of stylistic twaddle and intellectual rigor. Such directors will often have an inflated ego, and are quick to capitalize on the lazy craving for status that is the bane of many film buffs with too much time on their hands and too much focus on their navels.

So if you've got time to kill, if you can't sleep, or if you buy into the arthouse myth, you could give the bores a try. You might in time realize that their films are a con, and then you can get on with your real life.

[The Modernist]

I wouldn't include Godard in the list, too much quirky editing and narrative leaps. If you want French, slow and boring, then Robert Bresson is your homme.

Personally I really like a lot of this stuff. I like being immersed in a particular world and being allowed to observe it at leisure. I find too many modern films excessively plot driven. I'm more into character and atmosphere. I watched a film called 'Luzzu' the other day, about a Maltese fisherman. Almost nothing happens in it other than *SPOILER ALERT* he has to sell his boat. I liked it!

[GoogaMooga]

I like Robert Bresson. And some Godard, of course.