Cache and 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days.
the piano teacher
Irreversible. This movie is stuck in my memory and not simply for the brutality portrayed.
I don’t get it. Why not watch Woman Under the Influence a second, third or fifteenth time?
yea A Woman Under the Influence was pretty flipping harrowing.
Man Bites Dog is a pretty good example I think
If I don’t want to see a film a second time, chances are I simply don’t consider it impressive or interesting enough. I’m assuming that I’m not alone in that assessment.
Well, Dequinix, mostly I’d agreee with you. But I’d also note that SOPHIE’S CHOICE and THE HURT LOCKER were both such intense, wrenching experiences that, despite my very highr egard for them, I never want to watch them again. Too emotionally wrenching.
If it’s amazing why wouldn’t you watch it again? You seem to be bored, so try a rewatch or two.
yes I agree with Man Bites Dog
I haven’t watched The Hurt Locker a second time because I don’t think it would be as good. Knowing where everything goes would lessen the tension and that’s the best part of the film for me.
If a film loses its luster on a second viewing, then it is lacking something in its pacing, storytelling or direction. I have seen the first 10 minutes of The Hurt Locker several times, and every time it’s been great (especially when watching with different people and seeing their reactions). Too often, a film that can only be viewed only once for full impact is based on a gimmick, and that feels like a bit of a cop-out to me. The best films warrant multiple viewings, even if they are not complex or multi-layered. Appreciation should grow over time, not fade.
I feel that all great films — like great books — require a second look, but the second look should take place months or maybe even years after the initial one. I think this because you will be able to forget enough about the film or book by then to watch or read it with an open mind rather than not applying your full concentration to the work.
>> I haven’t watched The Hurt Locker a second time because I don’t think it would be as good. Knowing where everything goes would lessen the tension and that’s the best part of the film for me.<<
Well, I’m not sure that would be precisely the case for me. I knew that after having built up the first bomb defuser as a seeming main character & blowing him up, they weren’t going to pull that stunt again. Of course you never knew who else among the supporting characters might get blown up or snipered. But if the tension of will-they-or-won’t-they get through this mission had been all that the film was about I would not have liked it as much. The film, in fact, seemed to be pretty pointless to me until the scene in the grocery store.
I think Requiem for a Dream was a great film, but I think it only warrants one viewing, at least for me. This is because I think its merit is not so much in the individual scenes and details as it is in the full driving force of the film as a whole.
Generally, I think almost every movie warrants multiple viewings (even bad ones) just because there’s always multiple layers of meaning (even if it’s unintentional). Thus, any film can be interpreted and reinterpreted, intellectualized, and broken down into parts in order to sustain more robust criticism.
However, a few films – Requiem for a Dream being the quintessential – bear all their power in the initial harrowing experience, which transcends and overrides any technical or stylistic details. Not that I think it would be a bad thing to re-watch Requiem, especially if you weren’t in the right frame of mind when you first saw it… but I think it’s a rare case where, at least for me, it wouldn’t bring anything to the experience, and it may even dilute the memory that the movie first imprinted on me.
I never thought I’d be arguing in favor of a single-viewing theory, but here I am! What a crazy world.
Charlesdegaulle
A Woman Under the Influence