As I implied I do in fact like many modern filmmakers that can be called CCC, including Kiarostami and Bela Tarr. I’m not a Tarr fanboy, but I respect him whole-heartedly. I also like Kiarostami’s The Wind Will Carry Us, and Once Upon a Time in Anatolia contains one of the most beautiful scenes in modern cinema, and I can appreciate Hong even if I’m not obsessed with what I’ve seen from him, but the approach of people like Denis and Joe while successful sometimes feels very academic at other times. That’s part of the problem, I find a lot of modern “high brow” cinema to be very academic/intellectual without lacking artistic flair. Culprits would be Secret of the Grain, Secret Sunshine, Summer Hours, and Tuesday, After Christmas, for example. Werckmeister Harmonies and Regular Lovers, however, are quite slow and certainly require patience, but they’re ultimately successful. Denis is hit or miss for me. But even if I can respect what Joe is attempting to do, watching his films, especially Syndromes and a Century, feels like academic tedium. Okay, that may be a bit selfish, but still. Sorry, but that’s just how I feel. But then again, maybe I hesitate to acknowledge his importance, because I’m afraid to sound like a Joe fanboy.
“Culprits would be Secret of the Grain, Secret Sunshine, Summer Hours, and Tuesday, After Christmas, for example.”
None of which are Contemporary Contemplative Cinema. In fact in the string of films you mentioned only Werckmeister Harmonies has ever even been mentioned by Harry Tuttle, to my memory.
In fact, here Tuttle discusses the difference between “slow” and “contemplative,” specifically stating a filmmaker like Garrel is not contemplative (at least in the comparison to someone like Albert Serra).
“Part of the point of this topic to me is less a call out of any one ‘specific’ filmmaker, but more a call out on a trend.”
Yes, to point out an absolutely false trend to dismiss a broad range of filmmakers (but cowardly keeping those filmmakers names hidden) that have almost no relation to each other, other than a vague, wholly subjective “Contemplative” definition that (more often than not) doesn’t even come close to fitting the critic’s actual definition of the term.
Harry Tuttle has recommended eighteen films from 2010-2011.Hanezu – Naomi Kawase (2011)Las Acacias – Pablo GiorgelliOnce Upon a Time in Anatolia – Nuri Bilge CeylanHors Satan – Bruno DumontWorld Cruise 2010 – Yuki EikawaThe Turin Horse – Bela TarrAttenberg – Athina Rachel Tsangari (2010)Hi-So – Aditya AssaratUncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives – Apichatpong WeerasethakulBal – Semih KaplanogluLe Quattro Volte – Michelangelo FrammartinoAño Bisiesto – Michael RoweUn Homme Qui Crie – Mahamat-Saleh HarounThe Hunter – Raffi PittsIndigène d’Eurasie – Sharunas BartasWinter Vacation – Li HonqiMy Joy – Sergei LoznitsaDooman River – Zhang Lu
There’s pretty much an equal number of “new” and “old” filmmakers on that list. If we’re talking of generalities in this trend, we would do well to stick to most of that list seeing as this entire “trend” stems from his own mind.
Just as an add-on…
I like the idea that’s recently been popping up on here that so-called “contemplative” cinema and “mumblecore” cinema both make up the ‘vast majority’ of film festival winners and even films accepted at festivals, despite that being impossible as the two film “styles” are, aesthetically, narratively and stylistically, diametrically opposed.
“Logical validity is not a guarantee of truth.”
~David Foster Wallace Infinite Jest
Ok, if you want to sit here and debate the definition of something as vague and subjective as the genre “Contemporary Contemplative Cinema” why don’t we just simplify matters and call it the Boring, minimalist for the sake of being considered “artful”, faux-intellectual, cinematically impotent, subtle as a brick in your window bull****" genre, maybe that will encompass the full span of the films and filmmakers in question.
alright alright, might be trolling there with that but seriously let’s be mature about this and not nitpick so heavily, and maybe we can get down to the real meat and potatoes of this thing.
It isn’t something you can point to a list and say “hey these films ARE contemplative, these films ARE NOT.” There are infinite shades of grey and a 1000 different interpretations all valid, so let’s not get hung up on the fine print of what strictly “is” or “is not” CCC, shall we?
For example, I would consider Summer Hours in the vein of CCC, certainly. That is to say, certain “elements” are present. It might not be 100% true-blue by the book Tuttle approved “contemplative”, but never the less. I would also consider Kelly Reichardt to fall under this “genre” of filmmakers. Now maybe compared to The Death of Mr. Lazarescu, Kelly Reichardt is “Quentin Tarantino” but if you look at film as a whole and consider that modern Tony Scott is about as FAR away from “CCC” as you can get, and Bresson (or insert your preferred equivalent) is about as “CCC” as it gets, you’ll see that Reichardt lies much closer to Bresson than he does to Tony Scott.
That is what I consider Contemplative, anything that lies on the far extreme end of THAT spectrum. Not that I am forcing this definition on anyone else, this is all extremely subjective, just trying to express where I am coming from personally.
^ Of course these are generalities, many exceptions that prove the rule as it were, lots of solid “minimalist” filmmakers out there and there are lots of solid uh “maximist” filmmakers too, this graphic is more referencing these styles in concept. I believe anything can be done well in the right hands, even “bad” styles or “bad” material.
(Sorry to you Ming-Liang, HHH, Reichardt and Kiartostami fans! =( =( =( )
^You’re funny, Axelumog. And I don’t disagree with some of your cinephile-blasphemies.
“It isn’t something you can point to a list and say ‘hey these films ARE contemplative, these films ARE NOT.’”
Actually, you can. Hence, why I continuously link to Tuttle’s blog on here (it’s a wonder why one refuses to read it). He’s the man that came up with the terms. He’s the one that propagates the idea. He’s the one that constantly defines the style and discusses why it can’t be pinned down as simply as a swinging pendulum.
For example, the left side of your list encompasses a total of three distinct national cinemas (each spanning a history of well over half a century), four filmmakers that have made films in Uganda, the U.S., Iran, Japan, France, Taiwan, China, Italy, Malaysia, supply a political spectrum from near Marxism to almost nationalist conservatism, employ diverging styles of almost constant camera movement to almost totally static compositions (not to mention the use of narrowing telephoto lenses vs. elongating wide-angle lenses), each filmmaker has, at least, three definitively distinct periods. Not to mention the explorations into sexuality that each have gotten into (and, to not mention something else… one of them is the premiere filmmaker on human sexuality).
The right side is four white guys, from two countries. One of which shortened his shots after he saw everyone else do it.
But yeah… That’s totally not an example of (yet again), white hegemony placing a definitive need to compare even the subpar accomplishments of white men to the supposed subpar accomplishments of every other racial and sexual group on earth so as a means to, not dismiss the white guys, but to dismiss all others.
And if you did read his blog you’d understand why this ignorance you’re flouting would be frustrating to someone that actually has spent the time to read what he’s written.
It’s like stating, “my definition of auteur is far more relevant than Truffaut’s, or Bazin’s, or Godard’s, or Sarris’. It doesn’t matter if my opinion is absolutely subjective, generalized to the point of being utterly meaningless and based almost completely on one fallacy stacked upon another, for it is my opinion and therefore it is the only opinion worth having.”
Personally, I reject egoism in the guise of criticism (which is why I actually have a problem with Tuttle), but hey… I understand it’s tough to separate the two, for some…
I haven’t watched much modern day contemplative cinema. My favorites are still the old masters — Tarkovsky, Bresson, etc.
And yes, I do think what distinguishes good “contemplative cinema” from bad ones is that the bad ones have no thought behind them — just leaving the camera there and hope you strike some golden moment on film. Both Tarkovsky and Bresson are superb craftsmen who were VERY CAREFUL and THOUGHTFUL about what they put on screen.
“Well, broadly speaking, the “slow” is clearly partly a reaction against the increasing “fast” of mainstream films, so it’s partly a matter of distinguishing one’s work from another body of work . . .”
I think this is somewhat true. It’s hard to deny the impatience some of us have with the Greengrass/Scott-style of editing that has infiltrated mainstream filmmaking and that Bela Tarr is a nice alternative. So in a way, everything is inter-connected and dependent and reactionary to what is going on in the art form. The pendulum is constantly swinging, back and forth…back and forth.
Right. And even the perception of “slow” can mean many different things—very long films tend to seem “slower” than short films, films with very long takes might seem “slow”, film relatively lacking in over action and drama may seem slow.
Incidentally, the notion of Western perceptions being pushed from both sides reminds me of an essay by Karlheinz Stockhausen referenced by Jonathan Rosenbaum in his essay Is Ozu Slow :
“Exploring his fascination with a diverse variety of Japanese ceremonial forms–the Noh theater, Omizutori (the Water Consecration Festival), Sumo wrestling, and the tea ceremony–Stockhausen has the following to say about what he calls Japanese timing: “Where timing is concerned, the European is absolutely mediocre. Which means he has settled down somewhere in the middle of his range of potential tempi. It is a very narrow range, compared with the extremely fast reactions that a Japanese [person] might have at a certain moment, and to the extremely slow reaction that he might show on another occasion. He has a poor middle range compared to the European.” Stockhausen also implies that this distinction is in danger of being effaced or at least eroded by the Westernization and Americanization of Japan.”
So, if Westerners are stuck in a medium tempo . . .
“That’s part of the problem, I find a lot of modern “high brow” cinema to be very academic/intellectual without lacking artistic flair. Culprits would be Secret of the Grain, Secret Sunshine, Summer Hours, and Tuesday, After Christmas, for example. Werckmeister Harmonies and Regular Lovers, however, are quite slow and certainly require patience, but they’re ultimately successful.”
See, I agree with a lot of what Pisces is saying in very broad terms but once we get into specific films, like the ones mentioned here, I disagree. But this maybe proves his point, that some films for some people work but for others they don’t. I love Secret Sunshine and Summer Hours and actually didn’t find them very academic at all. They’re certainly more conventional than a movie like Werckmeister, which is a film I just could not get into (however The Turin Horse hit me hard and is one of the best films I’ve seen this year).
So what does this all mean? That maybe all these filmmakers are different? That all these films have no relation to each other? Or that indeed there are similarities and that’s OK because there are also enough differences that sometimes it works for someone and sometimes it doesn’t?
This is why I keep going back to these films and seeing them at festivals, hoping for the best. Sure, most might be turds that you can’t grab onto but occasionally you’ll stumble upon something that really works. Why does it work? Is it because you’re in the right frame of mind? Is it because the filmmaker did something different that made this film more effective? I tend to believe it’s a bit of both and believe the responsibility lies in both the viewer and the artist; if you’re in the mood for Superbad, don’t go see The Turin Horse. And as with any filmmaker, sometimes they make something that hits the mark while other times not. One thing that does strike me about this “genre” or “style” is that defenders are unequivocal in their defense, as if Bela Tarr is incapable of making a bad movie (which is the same psychosis that QT sycophants have when defending Tarantino’s latest film). I think it’s more intellectually honest to take each film on it’s own – in this case maybe I agree with Pisces, who likes some and dislikes others.
“^You’re funny, Axelumog. And I don’t disagree with some of your cinephile-blasphemies.”
Ditto. That chart made me chuckle.
Although I think it’s probably more effective to use films instead of filmmakers to make this point. For instance, I didn’t find Meek’s Cutoff to be that interesting but I loved Wendy & Lucy and Old Joy.
“Right. And even the perception of “slow” can mean many different things—very long films tend to seem “slower” than short films, films with very long takes might seem “slow”, film relatively lacking in over action and drama may seem slow.”
Precisely. Look at the reaction from mainstream audiences when Drive and The American came out – “boring”, “slow”, “nothing happens”, blah blah blah. Contemporary mainstream audiences say the same thing about mainstream films from 40 years ago – most kids today, if they watch Rosemary’s Baby or The Exorcist think they’re neither scary nor entertaining.
Kids these days…
@ WU YONG
“Actually, you can. Hence, why I continuously link to Tuttle’s blog on here (it’s a wonder why one refuses to read it). He’s the man that came up with the terms. He’s the one that propagates the idea. He’s the one that constantly defines the style and discusses why it can’t be pinned down as simply as a swinging pendulum.”
Look I respect the notion to “get everyone on the same page” for the sake of discussion and all that, but this is like trying to get everyone to agree on the definition of “Good film”. Good film means A LOT of things to A LOT of different people and that’s ok, because we can all relate and understand what “quality” is even though we might disagree on the fine print some of all the time as it were.
No offense to your main man Tuttle, but I don’t care how “brilliant” he is, there is just no way that any one person’s opinion should be strictly adhered too on a thing this subjective. It’s fine to use things as a general backbone or a guideline for sake of conversation ect., but there are going to be grey areas, in this case a vast sea of grey area. It would be pretty boring if we all had the same definitions of everything and would make for much less interesting discussions overall I think.
“For example, the left side of your list encompasses a total of three distinct national cinemas (each spanning a history of well over half a century), four filmmakers that have made films in Uganda, the U.S., Iran, Japan, France, Taiwan, China, Italy, Malaysia,”
And let’s not try and turn this into a political/race thing, like I said the chart is not about the filmmakers or even specific films per se, It’s about style in concept. If you want some non-oppressive “white men” for the fast side of the pendulum, how about Tarsem Singh, or Timur Bekmambetov? (and by fast, I of course mean something closer to eh shall we say… “more cinematic”)
“it’s like stating, “my definition of auteur is far more relevant than Truffaut’s, or Bazin’s, or Godard’s, or Sarris’.”
And talk about Egoism, my opinion is not as relevant as the all-mighty TRUFFAUT?! I guess not!
Sorry to jump into a deep and developed discussion, but I am really interested in this, what seems to be, very specific genre and was wondering if somebody could refer me to a few specifically essential films considered to be “Contemporary Contemplative Cinema”. Just as I don’t know much about it, and google search doesn’t seem to grant much information.
Thanks in advance!
Here are a couple of resources.
First, my list of the CCC films I’ve seen.
Carlo’s much more exhaustive list.
Harry Tuttle’s Unspoken Cinema.
You’re problem is that you’re proposing anything Tuttle says is the gospel and that anything that is not in accordance with what he believes is rubbish. Likewise, Tuttle proposes that anyone who disagrees with him on modern cinema is an anti-intellectual philistine. That’s not a very constructive way to conduct a discussion. This habit of calling people philistines because they admit they were bored and dozed off during a Hou hsiao hsen film needs to stop. I’m not criticizing Hou directly, since I’m relatively unfamiliar with his work. All I’m trying to say is that finding something boring doesn’t necessarily make someone a philistine. I’d recommend reading this by the way: http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=891
Just for the record, I don’t think, “boring” is a valid criticism at all.
For one thing, a director might want to lull you into a sense of boredom using certain minimalist techniques while portraying mundane, everyday existence, with the intent of engendering a reflexivity in which you realize that everyday life is often boring, and come to a new appreciation for the film. Anything can be called boring, but that’s not really saying anything.
Is boring really that invalid? Can you call something thrilling, gripping, or enthralling? How about captivating, or mesmerizing?
Isn’t something “boring” just the opposite of these things? Is it not a valid critique if something “just doesn’t grab you” even though you should appreciate it on paper?
And just because a director “intended” something to operate a certain way doesn’t innately validate it IMO. I don’t care if Transformers is operating exactly as Michael Bay intended it’s still a pile at the end of the day.
Sure, saying that something is “boring” is completely subjective, but when it comes to critiquing a work of art… what isn’t subjective?
“a director might want to lull you into a sense of boredom using certain minimalist techniques while portraying mundane, everyday existence, with the intent of engendering a reflexivity in which you realize that everyday life is often boring”
And if the director doesn’t pull off such an experiment very successfully it becomes utterly dull.Akerman does exactly this to brilliant effect in Jeanne Dielman, and we all know this, but sometimes a filmmaker can fail, even when he or she tries.
In any case, as I said before, whether or not Joe, Hong, Hou, or Denis are bad filmmakers is not the crux of my argument. Rather, I have a problem with the way in which “high brow” appreciation for cinema has headed down this path where “boredom”, broodingly slow pacing, aesthetic austerity, and seemingly mundane ways of portraying the mundane have becoming hallmarks of contemporary “art house” films with a few odd exceptions, such as Aki Kaurasmaki, and a few others. There’s nothing wrong with such an approach if you pull it off to ingenius effect, but way too many filmmakers seem to be avoiding aesthetic indulgence, and in order to counteract such an impulse they indulge in the antithesis of aesthetic indulgence. As I said, it seems to have opened up a pandora’s box in which most filmmakers who want to break into the festival circuit rely on these techniques to be accepted as “high brow” filmmakers. Otherwise, they risk appealing to middlebrow sensibilities, and that should be avoided at all costs. “No, I don’t want George from Money, Mississippi to enjoy my film.” Eventually the medium as something of intellectual interest will continue to fold in on itself until we’re stuck with three-hour long stationary shots of a church in New Canaan, Ct on a cloudy day in late March.
By the way I’m not saying films or any works of art need to appeal to middlebrow sensibilities. But they shouldn’t consciously avoid appealing to such sensibilities either. Could you imagine what The 400 Blows and Wild Strawberries would be like if their respective directors consciously attempted to make their films impenetrable to all but the most “curious” intellectuals who would do anything they could to make themselves feel they’ve mastered the film to the very last film.
But I wouldn’t use any of those adjectives and pretend I’d said something of critical value. Besides, no one ever uses those adjectives to dismiss a film, unlike ‘boring’.
And Pisces, no one is contending that every CCC film is successful.
“And Pisces, no one is contending that every CCC film is successful.”
Perhaps, but at the worst mubi-type cinephiles would say a CCC film is mediocre. They would never actually say a given CCC film is terrible, or else they would fear being called a philistine, and we all know there’s no bigger fear for a self-styled intellectual than to be labeled a philistine. However, if this type of person dislikes The Departed, they’ll have no qualms about saying it’s complete rubbish, but it would stink of philistinism if they utilized the same terminology to describe a CCC film. It’s okay to tear apart a mainstream film, but at the most you can moderately critique a CCC film without being labeled a philistine. I’m not a fan of The Departed by the way. I just think it’s possible that certain CCC films can be just as terrible or mediocre as mainstream films, and people should feel free to criticize them as such. It’s possible for a given mainstream film to be infinitely superior to a given CCC film. Just because something seems more intellectually challenging doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a superior work of art. In any case, Godard, Bazin, et al. had the courage to examine and appreciate the artistry that existed in certain works of “mainstream” cinema. Perhaps Mubians as lovers of cinema should take themselves to task and do the same with regard to current cinema.
“For one thing, a director might want to lull you into a sense of boredom using certain minimalist techniques while portraying mundane, everyday existence, with the intent of engendering a reflexivity in which you realize that everyday life is often boring, and come to a new appreciation for the film.”
But then that wouldn’t be boring, would it?
I’ve never understood the Mubi creed regarding what is “valid” criticism and what isn’t. Of course boring is valid. It’s all valid! Who the hell is anyone to dictate what is and isn’t “valid”. If there is any word that should be banned, it’s not “boring” or “pretentious” – it’s “valid”. lol
“But then that wouldn’t be boring, would it?”
Only if you took the time to be reflexive.
“Boring” tells me nothing about the film. It tells me you were bored.
" I have a problem with the way in which “high brow” appreciation for cinema has headed down this path where “boredom”, broodingly slow pacing, aesthetic austerity, and seemingly mundane ways of portraying the mundane have becoming hallmarks of contemporary “art house” films "
I think this is true but I wonder if this has always been the case. I can’t say I pay much attention to “high brow” appreciation or know what’s going on in the halls of fancy academia but I would assume the people “at the top of the mountain” have always shown such affinity for this kind of cinema. Am I wrong? Is this really a new trend? If anything, maybe these types have films have become more commonplace or maybe just more well-known?
“As I said, it seems to have opened up a pandora’s box in which most filmmakers who want to break into the festival circuit rely on these techniques to be accepted as “high brow” filmmakers. "
This might be true but these are the real philistines. If you’re adopting this aesthetic and style for articifial purposes, I think it will come across in your films. Tarr and Denis are successful, in my opinion, because they seem sincere. However a filmmaker like Matt Porterfield or Mike Ott…I’m not so sure. :)
“Otherwise, they risk appealing to middlebrow sensibilities, and that should be avoided at all costs.”
That’s the irony. People like Cassavetes and Herzog were trying to appeal to the middlebrow (or even low brow) but over time have since been embraced as high brow.
“Could you imagine what The 400 Blows and Wild Strawberries would be like if their respective directors consciously attempted to make their films impenetrable to all but the most “curious” intellectuals who would do anything they could to make themselves feel they’ve mastered the film to the very last film.”
I wonder how many filmmakers even consider their audience when making their films. Other than maybe Michael Haneke, is anyone really shooting films for intellectuals? God, what a depressing thought.
“I just think it’s possible that certain CCC films can be just as terrible or mediocre as mainstream films, and people should feel free to criticize them as such.”
Absolutely. Anything other than this is intellectually dishonest. People shouldn’t worry about being called a philistine. That says more about the person calling you the name than it does about you. If anything, I would embrace the word. As Herzog says, “Academia is the death of cinema…Film is not the art of scholars, but of illiterates.” For most of us making serious films, this is obvious.
“Only if you took the time to be reflexive.”
Again, then you weren’t bored.
The nitpicking semantics destroys (or more aptly ignores) intention. We all know what we mean when we say “boring” – so long as you take time to be reflexive.
“Transformers was boring” – what does that mean?? Well, what the intention? What’s the objective with a sentence like this. Well, read between the lines. It’s not lazy criticism because it forces you to engage in the critic. Now of course further explanation is helpful. The statement “Transformers was boring” doesn’t give a lot of information but it certainly give enough information to garner some insight: the action sucked, it didn’t draw you into the story, the characters were weak and you didn’t care about them, it felt long, the second act meandered and got lost so that when we got to the climax it didn’t matter what the journey was. These are all things I can surmise when a mainstream audience member comes up to me and says “Transformers was boring”. When I hear that sentence, it leads me to follow up with questions that are pointed at my assumptions: “Did the action go on too long?” Yes. “Was there no character development?” No.
This is pretty simple stuff. I think we all just get caught up in wanting to pick fights over semantics instead of trying to understand intention. Of course I’m coming at this from a filmmaking standpoint and not a critical standpoint and maybe that’s the difference? Filmmaking is all about intention whereas criticism is more focused on semantics? I don’t know. I’m not a critic.
“You’re problem is that you’re proposing anything Tuttle says is the gospel and that anything that is not in accordance with what he believes is rubbish.”
“No offense to your main man Tuttle…”
Alright, forget it… You guys aren’t listening.
How many times do I have to voice my problems with Tuttle even attempting to link these films and filmmakers before people stop immediately resorting to the idea that, merely because I think one should actually know what they’re talking about (i.e. perhaps reading the work of the person that actually came up with the term we’re discussing), I treat his word as unalterable gospel?
I’m a man that respects context. Tuttle looked at these filmmakers and saw many of them had independently struck upon a similar cinematic style; seemingly throughout the world, sans cultural bonds; that was linked loosely in both formal and narrative means (or at least he argues as such). We are linking all of these films, not based on a critical understanding of how they independently found this style, but based on our supposed understanding of the style itself. It’s not critical evaluation, it’s subjective dismissal. I’m asking those that are dismissing merely to know what it is they are dismissing. The very fact that we’re trying to figure out whether The Regular Lovers, or Summer Hours is ‘CCC’ vs. Werskmeister Harmonies shows that we, simply, do not understand the term in-and-of-itself.
Oh, and guys… semantics are intention.
Harry Tuttle is a half-educated, crackpot blogster who does nothing but chase his own tail quibbling over definitions. No doubt for someone of your intellectual caliber that passes for erudition, but the rest of us are not interested in playing taxonomical games. If a movie is contemporary and contemplative, then it is contemporary contemplative cinema.
I don’t know. I thought Contaign was contemporary and contemplative, especially about a global pandemic and it had nothing in common with the films being described here. Oh and it was terrible too.
Don’t use dime store analysis. It doesn’t reflect well on anyone.
“There’s nothing wrong with such an approach if you pull it off to ingenius effect, but way too many filmmakers seem to be avoiding aesthetic indulgence, and in order to counteract such an impulse they indulge in the antithesis of aesthetic indulgence.”
Not to try to argue anyone off of their personal preferences or anything, and I’m all for a more nuanced understanding of mainstream fimmaking, but, again, you’re painting with the broadest possible brush here. You’re lumping Denis in with Joe, even though, for example if you look at this in terms of even the rawest possible data, The ASL for Tropical Malady is somewhere in the neighborhood of 16.7 seconds, while the ASL of White Material is around 7.1 seconds, which is much closer to, say, Spielberg’s War Horse (6.4), War of the Worlds (6.8), and Munich (7.9) than most of Joe’s films.
And this sort of rudimentary analysis doesn’t even begin to be able to account for the enormous variety of different framing, shot scale, camera movement, blocking, etc. possible with the course of a single shot, so, with all due respect, suggesting that this films are not artistically differentiated simply because they are “contemplative” or “slow” or “boring” suggests a lack of real attention to the specifics of these films more than it does meaningful connections between films.
“No doubt for someone of your intellectual caliber that passes for erudition, but the rest of us are not interested in playing taxonomical games.”
Well, for someone that would claim to have an intellectual caliber of such astounding qualities it seems you would be better able to read simple English and understand it (didn’t I say something about some on here being unable to separate their own egoism for criticism?).
Tuttle invented the term. I never said you had to like that fact, but it’s a fact nonetheless. Some on here are dismissing the entire so-called “movement” without even reading the person that invented it in the first place.
If that’s not absurd to you, your obvious intense intellectual genius has clouded your ability to understand what “common sense” is.
[And I sense if that’s the kind of meaningless, mean-spirited childishness I’ll get in response for simply stating empirical facts then I might as well stop chasing my tail with you guys. I mean the the whole, “Grr… You’re stating facts that I dislike so I’m gonna call you stupid and try to turn what was a respectable conversation I had absolutely no involvement in into an argument third graders would be embarrassed to engage in,” actually makes me pretty happy not to be of your intellectual “caliber”.]
There are two parallel conversations happening in this thread and most posters on each side are not really talking with each other, but themselves.
Fredo—My point is about those who dismiss films as boring—what exactly are you arguing with me about if you agree that reflexivity is a gateway past that dismissal?
SO IT IS FREDO. I THOUGHT SO.